mm 


K.Oi 


'^^'-^^^^^-^Kff^''Jp.^, 


^^  zs-/rf7 


w 

^P 

^^^^ 

^^ 

'^m^^- 

1^^ 

S^^^ 

^<^Ms 

^<^iL>.^^^^S<^> 

i^M 

m 

^^^ 

^^8 

"w^^p 

^^^v^Sl^ 

» 

s» 

Protection  and  Prosperity 


'//;,.,„„j.'^.  '^l"/. 


Protection  and  Prosperity 


AN  ACCOUNT  OF  TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AND  ITS 
EFFECT  IN  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA 


GEORGE  B.  CURTISS,  Esq. 


COUNSELOP- 


"A  nation,  whether  it  consume  its  own  productions,  or  wilh  them  purchase  from  abroad, 
can  have  no  more  to  spend  than  it  produces.  Therefore,  the  supreme  policy  of 
every  nation    is  to    develop    its    own  producing  forces."— Si>  John   Barnard  Bytes. 


PAN-AMEp^:-:PUBLIS,HI>:G  GOMPANY 
1 1  ll\^ftiAvenu_e,^'|fe^ 


w^ 


.0^ 


COPYRIGHT,  1896,  BY  GEORGE  B.  CURTISS,  ESQ. 
ENTERED  AT  STATIONERS'  HALL,  LONDON. 


ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED. 


PREFACE. 


In  his  boyhood  days  the  author  became  fascinated  with  the  study  of  the  civil 
and  political  history  of  nations.  Inspired  by  the  few  books  which  were  obtainable 
during  early  years,  spent  on  a  farm  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  he  continued  the  study 
after  being  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  during  the  spare  hours  and  evenings  of  an 
active  practice  in  the  civil  and  criminal  courts  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

During  the  campaign  of  1880,  when  the  question  assumed  prominence  as  the 
chief  issue  between  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties,  a  systematic  investi- 
gation of  the  question  was  begun.  The  reading  of  one  book  led  to  the  study  of 
others,  until,  provi4ed  with  all  the  leading  works  upon  both  sides  of  the  question, 
the  author  early  discovered  that  while  the  political  literature  of  the  United  States 
was  most  complete  with  speeches,  pamphlets  and  books,  and  the  scientific  phases 
of  the  subject  had  been  fully  discussed  by  able  and  critical  writers,  yet  there  was 
still  a  large  field  left  unexplored.  It  has  been  claimed  by  many  that  there  is 
nothing  new  to  be  said  upon  the  tariff  question,  yet  the  following  volume  presents 
nearly  six  hundred  pages  dealing  with  the  tariff  history  in  foreign  countries, 
which,  for  the  most  part,  has  not  hitherto  been  systematically  treated. 

In  his  investigation  the  author  found  that  there  was  no  treatise  in  the  English 
language  giving  a  history  of  the  tariff  legislation  of  Germany,  France,  Russia  and 
all  Continental  countries ;  that  no  protectionist  had  investigated  the  history  of 
Great  Britain  and  given  to  the  world  an  account  of  the  growth  and  development 
of  her  industries  and  tariff  legislation,  written  from  a  protective  point  of  view, 
and  that  the  unwise  policy  pursued  by  the  United  Kingdom  in  adopting  free  trade 
remained  practically  unchallenged. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in  17S9,  the  tariff  policy  of  the  United 
States  has  fluctuated  between  adequate  protection  and  low  duties.  Although  at 
times  the  duties  were  so  reduced  as  to  reach  nearly  a  revenue  basis,  yet  at  no  time 
had  a  consistent  free  trade  policy  been  pursued.  With  vast  resources  and  oppor- 
tunities, and  economic  conditions  differing  from  those  of  other  countries,  it  was 
difficult  to  measure  accurately  the  wisdom  or  folly  of  free  trade  dogmas,  upon  the 
information  drawn  wholly  from  the  experience  of  this  nation.  While  it  could 
easily  be  shown  that  our  country  has  enjoyed  great  prosperity  and  made  rapid 
advancement  under  the  stimulating  influences  of  protective  tariffs,  and  that 
periods  of  low  import  duties  have  in  each  instance  arrested  progress  and  plunged 
the  country  into  bankruptcy  and  business  depressions  ;  yet  it  was  found  that  in 
the  face  of  this  experience  the  alleged  beneficial  results  of  free  trade  in  England 
were  constantly  pointed  to  by  its  advocates,  as  proof  of  its  wisdom. 

The  author  also  discovered  that  the  onlj-  test  of  free  trade  principles  for  any 
considerable  length  of  time,  by  a  highly  civilized  and  great  producing  nation,  was 
to  be  found  in  Great  Britain,  and  while  Germany,  France,  Russia  and  other 
Continental  countries  had,  for  short  periods,  reduced  duties  on  imports  and 
approached  a  revenue  basis,  yet  they  soon  returned  to  the  protective  system, 
(vii) 

250856 


The  necessity,  then,  became  urgent  for  a  critical  investigation  of  the  effect  of 
free  trade  in  Great  Britain,  and  of  the  results  achieved  under  the  protective  policy 
which  had  previously  been  pursued  as  well  as  of  the  economic  conditions  and 
causes  which  induced  the  abandonment  of  protection  and  the  adoption  of  the  policy 
of  free  imports,  in  order  that  sound  conclusions  might  be  reached.  The  origin 
and  circumstances  under  which  economic  principles  were  formulated  and 
announced,  were  conceived  to  be  important,  in  order  that  their  application  to 
present  industrial  conditions  might  be  understood. 

As  a  result  of  such  research  and  after  an  investigation  of  the  facts  bearing 
upon  the  subject,  extending  over  a  period  of  nearly  fifteen  years,  the  present 
volume  is  given  to  the  public.  The  writer  has  endeavored  to  compile  and  arrange 
the  most  reliable  statistics  and  historical  facts  relating  to  the  fiscal  policies  of  the 
leading  commercial  nations.  The  be.st  thought  of  the  world  bearing  upon  the 
various  phases  of  the  question  is  reflected  in  the  following  pages.  An  attempt 
has  been  made  to  verify  everj'  statement  by  facts  and  figures  of  the  most  reliable 
character  ;  yet  a  work  of  this  kind  which  treats  of  a  controversial  subject,  caimot 
be  supported  by  statements  and  conclusions  which  are  whoUj'  unchallenged. 
There  is  no  middle  or  neutral  ground  between  the  policies  of  protection  and  free 
trade.  An  irreconcilable  conflict  arises  from  the  fundamental  bases  upon  which 
the  two  theories  rest,  which  remains  and  grows  sharper  and  more  clearly  defined 
throughout  all  phases  of  the  question.  The  most  that  a  writer  can  accomplish,  who 
conscientiously  and  earnestly  treats  a  subject  is,  to  present  the  truth  as  it  appears 
to  him  after  a  careful  and  full  investigation.     This  the  writer  has  attempted  to  do. 

This  work  is  dedicated  to  the  Republican  party.  If  its  merits  are  in  keeping 
with  the  importance  of  the  subject  treated,  it  will  be  a  fitting  tribute  to  the  political 
organization  which  has  ever  defended  the  toiling  masses,  and  with  patriotic  zeal 
labored  earnestly  to  promote  the  welfare  of  every  citizen  and  every  section  of  our 
great  Republic,  standing  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances  as  a  bold  and 
aggressive  advocate  and  defender  of  the  industrial  and  commercial  interests  of  the 
nation. 

If  .space  would  permit  it  would  gratify  the  writer  to  make  special  mention  of 
the  aid  he  has  derived  in  the  preparation  of  this  work  from  the  mauj^  patriotic 
defenders  of  the  cause  of  protection  who  have  so  ably  treated  various  phases  of  the 
question  ;  yet  the  work  abounds  in  quotations  which  are  accredited  to  their  respec- 
tive authors.  It  is  inciunbent,  however,  upon  the  writer  to  make  special  mention 
of  the  invaluable  assistance  in  the  compilation  of  historical  and  statistical  matter 
upon  the  tariff  question  in  the  United  States,  which  he  has  received  from  Mr.  F. 
B.  D.  Curtis,  formerly  editor  of  the  American  Economist. 


Binghamton,  N.  Y.,  February  22,  i8g6. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION, xx 


OUTLINE   OF   COMMERCIAL   HISTORY   TO    1650. 


Chapter      I. — General  Division  of  Trade,  Commerce  and  Indus- 
tries   I 

Chapter     II. — Commerce  of  the  Nations  of  Antiquity, 8 

Chapter  III.— Industrial  Development   of  Italian   and  German 

Cities  in  the  Middle  Ages 17 

Chapter   IV. — Development  of   Trade   and   Industries  in  West- 
ern Europe, 25 


CONTENTS. 


PART    II. 
EARLY   ENGLAND   UNDER   FREE  TRADE. 

PAGE 

Chapter       I. — Sociai.   and   Industrial   Conditions    Prior    to  the 

Fourteenth  Century,     35 

Chapter     II. — Trade  and  Commerce  Monopolized   by    Foreigners,  42 

Chapter  HI. — First  Attempts  at  Protection,       46 

Chapter   IY.— Rise  and  Fall  of  Trade  Guilds 50 

Chapter     V.— Disorganization  of  Labor 55 


PART   III. 


MODERN   ENGLAND   UNDER   PROTECTION. 

Chapter      I.— The    Protective    Policy  of  Great    Britain  from 

1558  TO  iSoo  and  What  it  Teaches, 59 


Chapter     II.— Growth  of  Industries  from  1800  to  i860, 


PART   IV. 


RETURN   TO   FREE   TRADE   IN    ENGLAND   AND    ITS   EFFECT  ON 
HOME   INDUSTRIES. 


Chapter      I.— Origin  of  the  Free  Trade  Movement 127 

Chapter    II. — Free  Trade  Legislation, 153 

Chapter  III. — England  Under  Free  Trade  from  1850  to  1874,    .  198 

Chapter   IV. — Free  Trade  and  English  Industries, 224 

Chapter     V. — Free  Trade  and  English  Industries  {Co>iti?iued),    .  264 

Chapter   VI. — The  Free  Trade  Policy  a  Failure,      300 

Tables  Showing  Foreign  Trade  of  Great  Britain, 386 


PROTECTION  TO    NATIVE    INDUSTRIES    IN    CONTINENTAL 
AND    OTHER    COUNTRIES. 


Chapter      I. — Protection  in  the  German  Empire 404 

Chapter    II. — Russia, 454 


Chapter  III.— France 488 

Chapter    IV. — Austria-Hungary,  Italy,  Belgium,  Holland,  Switz- 
erland AND  Other  Countries, 533 


PART   VI. 


THE  TARIFF   QUESTION   IN   THE  UNITED   STATES. 

Chapter      I. — Early  Tariff  History  to  1833 564 

Chapter    II. — Low  Tariffs,   1833  to  i860 587 

Chapter  III. — Protective  Legislation,   i860  to  1892,      616 

Chapter    IV. — Growth  of  Agriculture,   1850  to  1890, 657 

Chapter     V. — Textiles,    Iron    and    Steel,    and     Miscellaneous 

Industries,      672 

Chapter   VI. — Triumph  of  Democracy  and  Free  Trade 721 

Chapter  VII.— Economic  Discussion, 774 

Tables,  Miscellaneous  Statistics,      82S 

Index 847 


LIST  OF  TABLES. 


British  Colonies,  Date  and  Mode  of  Acquisition So 

Computation  of  Income  by  Mr.  Pitt, 93 

Total  Exports  and  Imports  Between  Great  Britain  and  Other  Countries, 

1697-1793.      94 

Growth  of  Population  in  the  United  Kingdom,     100 

Increase  in  Population  IN  the  Chief  Cities  OF  England,  1821-61 loi 

Division  OF  Population  According  to  Occup.^TioNS loi,  102 

British  Foreign  Trade  in  Cotton  and  Cotton  Goods,  1S20-59, 10& 

Exports  of  Domestic  Woolen  and  Worsted  Manufactures  (United  Kingdom), 

1820-59 109 

Exports  of  Domestic  Linen  Manufactures  (United  Kingdom),  1820-59 i" 

Exports  of  Domestic  vSiLK  Manufactures  (United  Kingdom),  1820-59, 112 

Declared  Value  of  Exports  of  Domestic  Metal  Manufactures  (United  King- 
dom-, 1820-59, H4 

Declared  Value  of  Exports  of  Miscellaneous  Articles  of  Domestic  Manufac- 
tures (United  Kingdom),  1831-59 117 

Total  Imports   and    Exports  of  United  Kingdom,    1793-1859    (Exclusive  of 

Bullion  and  Specie) ng 

Fluctuations  in  Prices,  17S2-1884 121 

Revenue  and  National  Debt,  (England),  1814-43 15" 

Revenue  FROM  Duties  on  Imports  (Englandi,  1840, 165 

Revenue  FROM  Duties  on  Imports  (England),  1849, 166 

Effect  of  the  Tariff  Changes  of  1842, i66 

Revenue  from  Customs  Duties  (England),  1859, 19: 

Revenue  from  Duties  on  Mandf.actures  (England),  1859, 192 

(xiii) 


LIST  OF   TABLES 


The  British  Customs  Tariff,  1894, 193 

Amount  OF  Revenue  OF  THE  United  Kingdom 193 

Amount  of  Expenditures  op  the  United  Kingdom, 196 

Total  Produce  op  Pig  Iron  (Great  Britain),  1854-57, 21S 

Miles  of  Railroad  in  Operation  in  1866 220 

Textile  Industry  (England),  1S56,     221 

Value  of  Textile  Fabrics  Manufactured  in  Great  Britain  in  1856, 222 

Annual  Consumption  of  Raw  Cotton,  1S41-89, 245 

Statistical  Analysis  of  Cotton  Trade,  1S70-S9, 245 

Grain  Crop  in  18S2  and  1892, 281 

Decrease  in  percentage  of  population  Employed  in  Agriculture  (Great 

Britain),  1851-S1 282 

Summary  of  Imports  for  Home  Consumption  Into  United  Kingdom,  Together 
WITH  Total  Imports  and  Re-exports  of  Foreign  and  Colonial  Produce, 

1S36-90 304 

Summary  of  Exports  of  Domestic  Productions  from  United   Kingdom,  To- 
gether with  Re-exports  of  Foreign  and  Colonial  Produce  and  Total 

Exports,  1S60-92, 308 

Comparative    Growth   of    Foreign    Trade    of    Thirteen    Trading   Nations, 

1S54-74,  1874-90  and  1S54-92, 312 

Foreign  Trade  op  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  1874-92, 314 

Emigration  from  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States,  1878-88 316 

Balance  OP  Trade  OP  United  Kingdom,  1S64-93,      3^7 

Weekly  Earnings  of  Skilled  Laborers  in  Great  Britain  in  1S33,  1853  and 

1S92, 348 

Average  Wages  Paid  IN  British  Ship  Yards,  1851-94, 350 

Wages  of  Cotton  Weavers  in  England 35i 

Wages  of  Cotton  Spinners, 352 

Wages  Earned  by  Women  in  the  Cotton  Industry, 353 

Wages  of  Woolen  Weavers 353 

Wages  of  Woolen  Spinners, 355 

Wages  Earned  by  Women  in  the  Woolen  Industry, 356 


LIST  OF  TABLES.  xr 

Wages  Earned  by  Women  in  Miscellaneous  Textile  Industries,  1891-92,       .   .  35S 

Statistics  of  Pauperism  in  Great  Britain  and  on  the  Continent,  1S91-94,   .   .   .  3S0 
Imports  OF  Agricultural  Products  Retained  for  Home  Consumption  (United 

Kingdom),  1836-90, 386 

Imports  of  Fully  Manufactured  Articles  Retained  for  Home  Consumption 

(United  Kingdom),  1836-90,     ■  388 

Imports  of  Partially  Manufactured  Articles  Retained  for  Home  Consump- 
tion (United  Kingdom),  1836-90,      39° 

Imports  of  Raw  Materials  Retained  for  Home  Consumption  (United  King- 
dom), 1S36-90 392 

Imports  of   Food  Products  Retained  for  Home  Consumption  (United  King- 
dom), 1836-90,   ' 394. 

Dutiable    Articles    Retained    for    Home    Consumption    (United    Kingdom), 

1836-90, 394 

Exports  OF  Domestic  Productions  of  Textile  Fabrics  (United  Kingdom),  1860-92,  396 
Exports  of    Domestic    Productions    of    Manufacturers  of  Metals,    Glass, 

Earthen  and  China  Ware  (United  Kingdom),  1860-92, 398 

Exports  of  Domestic  Productions  of  Miscellaneous  Manufactures  (United 

Kingdom),  1S60-92 400 

Exports    of    Domestic    Productions    of    Partly    Manufactured    Articles, 

Machinery  and  Coal  (United  Kingdom),  1860-92, 402 

Exports  of  Miscellaneous  Domestic  Products  (United  Kingdom),  1860-92,     .   .  402 

Imports  of  Wheat  and  Rye  Into  Germany  in  1891, 429 

Exports  of  Food  Products  (Germany  to  Great  Britain),  1894,      ...    •  .   .   .   .  430 

Imports  of  Sugar  (Germany),  1880-90,      432 

Exports  of  Sugar  (Germany),  1876-90 433 

Wages  Paid  in  the  District  of  Potsdam-Frankfort-on-Oder,  18S2-S9 446 

Imports  and  Exports  (German  Customs  Territory),  1891,     44S 

Imports  of  Raw  Material  and  Exports  of  Textile  Fabrics  (Germany),  1893,   .  450 

Foreign  Trade  of  Russia,  1S24-49 456 

Growth  of  Russian  Manufactures  Under  the  Tariffs  of  1850-57  and  '68,    ...  45S 

Growth  of  Industries  in  Russia,  1875-90 460 


xvi  LIST  OF  TABLES. 

Russian  Industries  in  1890 461 

Growth  of  Cotton  Industry  in  Russia,  1880-89 462 

Production  and  Consumption  OF  Hemp  Fibre  (Europe),  1884-S8 464 

Growth  OF  THE  Paper  Industry  (Russia),  1765-1889, 467 

Development  of  the  Wood- Working  Industry  (Russia),  1881-90, 469 

Home  Production,  Consumption  and  Exportation  of  Metallic  Wares  (Russia), 

1890 474 

Products  of  Russian  Mines  in  1890 477 

Value  of  Imports  (Russia),  1890-91, 4S0 

Value  of  Exports  (Russia),  1890-91, 482 

Internal  Trade  of  Russia,  1S90 484 

Wages  Paid  in  Russia 485 

Foreign  Trade  (France),  1820-61, 512 

Exports  AND  Imports  OF  Bullion  (France),.  1822-29 512 

Statistics  of  Industrial  Development  (France), 512-515 

Percentage  of  Land  Under  Cultivation  (France),  1889 525 

Production  of  Cereals  (France).  1S78-92, 525 

Quantities  and  Values  of  the  Principal  Agricultural  Products  Other  Than 

Cereals  (France),  1893 525 

Exports  from  France  to  the  United  States,  1893, 527 

Exports  from  Austria-Hungary  to  the  United  St.\tes,  1893, 535 

Commerce  of  Italy,  1S90 538 

Trade  of  Italy  with  the  United  States  and  Canada, 539 

.Agricultural  Production  in  Italy,  1889 54° 

Wages  of  Italian  Workmen,  1S62-S9, 542 

Foreign  Trade  of  Belgium,  1892 546 

Manufactures  OF  Switzerland,  1893, 547 

Trade  (United  States)  with  Asiatic  Countries,  1894,  .       55' 

TR.'i.DE  (United  States)  with  Africa,  1894, 552 

Trade  (United  vStatics)  with  Oceanica,  1894 552 

Trade  iUnitko  Statesi  with  Othicr  American  Countries,  1894 556 

Exports  and  Imports  (rNiTKi)  States)  to  and  from  Great  Britain,  17S4-90,    .    .  56S 


LIST  OF  TABLES. 


Returns  of  Manufactures  (United  States),  iSio, 573 

Imports  (United  States),  1S15-1S, 577 

Production  of  Iron  (United  States),  1810-32, 5S6 

Tariff  on  Raw  Materials  in  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  Com- 
pared, 1842  and  1846, 602 

Imports  (United  States),  1846-60 608 

Cotton  Exported  from  United  States,  1847-60, 610 

Balance  of  Trade  in  United  States,  1848-57 613 

National  Debt  IN  United  States  Before  and  After  THB  Civil  War 618 

Increase  of  Free  Imports,  1867-94 619 

Production  of  Steel  Rails,  1867-94,      620 

Importation  of  Rails  op  All  Kinds  Into  United  States,  1S67-93,     620 

Importation  of  Wool  and  Woolens  in  1883  and  1889, 625 

Comparative  Growth  of   Principal    Manufactures  in  the  United    States, 

1880-93 62S 

General  Progress  of  United  States,  1860-90, 631 

Dutiable  Imports  Into  United  States  for  1889,  with  Estimate  of  Labor  That 

Would  Have  Been  Employed  in  Producing  Them  in  This  Country,     ...  634 

Industrial  Progress  of  The  South  Under  Protection,  1880-90, 636-637 

Distribution  of  United  St.\tes  Commerce  by  Leading  Countries  and  Grand 

Divisions  of  the  Globe  in  1892, 649 

Summary  of  McKinley  Bill 653 

Summary  of  American  Tariff  Acts  Passed,  17S9,  1S94,  with  Salient  Features 

AND  Consequences,      654 

Distribution  op  Population  of  United  States  in  Gainful  Occupations  in  1890,  657 
Incre.ase  in  Manufacture  of  Farm  Labor-Saving  Implements  and  Machinery, 

1850-60 659 

Progress  of  Agriculture  in  United  States,  1850-90 660 

Progress  of  Agriculture,  1870-S0 661 

Wages  in  American  and  English  Cotton  Mills,  Compared,     673 

Cotton   Manufactures   and   Consumption   in   England   and  United   States, 

1832-90 674 


xviii  LIST  OF   TABLES. 

Manufacture  and  Importation  of  Woolens  (United  States),  1820-90, 678 

Exports  from  Bradford,  England,  to  United  States  in  1883  and  1890, 679 

Wages  in  Worsted  Industry,  Compared  in  Massachusetts,  England,  France 

and  Belgium 681 

Imports  of  Shoddy  and  Duty  Per  Pound,  1890-95, 684 

Comparative  Wages  Paid  For  Spinning  Flax  in  Europe  and  America, 688 

Growth  of  Iron  and  Steel  Industries  (United  .States),  1860-90 691 

Wire  Nails  Manufactured  (United  States),  1875-94, 691 

Comparative  Wages  Paid  in  America  and  Scotland  for  Miners,  Railway 

Operatives  and  Iron  JIanufacturers, 692-694 

Wages  for  Pottery  and  Cost  of  Manufacture  of  Earthen  Ware  in  England 

and  America  Compared, 696 

Wages  in  Window  Glass  Industry,  United  States  and  Belgium 698 

Wages  Paid  on  Plate  Glass  in  America,  Belgium  and  England, 699 

Growth  of  Manufactures  in  the  United  States,  i86o-go, 704 

Decline  of  Prices,  1S57-91, 708-711 

Relative  Value  of  Principal  Farm  Products  and  Articles  of  Consumption  in 

(United  States),  1S73  and  1891, 712 

Increase  OF  Wages  (United  States),  1840-91, 716 

Average  Weekly  Wages,  Europe  AND  United  States,  1890 719 

Average  Weekly  Wages  Paid  in  Great  Britain  in  Certain  Trades  and  Occu- 
pations,       720 

Imports  and  Exports  (United  States),  1892-94  and  95 745 

Imports  of  Wool  and  Woolens,  1S94-95 747 

Exports  of  American  Products,  1892  and  1S95 74° 

Agricultural  Imports  Under  McKinley  and  Wilson  Law  Compared 748 

Decrease  of  Business,  Labor  and  Wages,  1893-95, 75° 

Failures  and  Liabilities,  1894.-95, 75i 

Increase  of  National  Debt,  1894-96, "52 

Imports  of  Wheat  from  Various  Countries  (England),  1892-94 7S8 

Imports  of  Agricultural  Products  (United  Kingdom),  1894 760 

Cost  of  Coal,  Coke  and  Iron  (United  States) 767-768 


LIST  OF   TABLES. 


Effect  of  Tariff  on  Prices  in  United  States 772 

Supply  of  Precious  Metals,  1492-1S05, 777 

Value  of  Exports  and  Imports  of  Merchandise  (United  States),  1791-1S95,  .  .  828 
Exports  AND  Imports  of  Gold  and  Silver  Coin  and  Bullion,  1821-95  (United 

States), S31 

Receipts  of  the  United  States  from  1789-1895 834 

Expenditures  of  the  United  States  from  March  4,  1789,  to  June  30,  1895,  ...  S37 
Value  of  Principal  Articles  of  Merchandise  Imported  (United  States),  1890, 

92,  94  and  95,   ... 840 

Value  of  Principal  ."Articles  Exported  from  the   United  States,  1890,  92, 

94>  95> 844 


INTRODUCTION 

BY  HON.  WILLIAM  McKINLEY,  HON.  LEVI  P.  MORTON, 

HON.  THOMAS   BRACKETT   REED. 


I. 

The  experiences  of  states  and  of  nations  are  of  far  more  value  in  solving  the 
perplexing  economic  questions  which  confront  us  than  the  boldest  assumptions  of 
theorists.  An  eminent  English  economist  of  the  latter  day  school  not  long  since 
took  the  courageous  stand  that  no  mere  theorist  had  a  right  to  expect  intelligent 
people,  who  investigated  for  themselves,  to  believe  implicitly  in  theoretical  political 
economy  when  confronted  by  practical  men  who  had  at  their  finger  ends  facts, 
history  and  statistics  which  pointed  in  the  opposite  direction.  That  this  same 
professor  should  frankly  avow  in  the  article  on  Political  Economy  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica  that  the  widespread  dissatisfaction  with  the  existing  state  of  eco- 
nomic science  made  it  inexpedient  to  attempt  a  new  dogmatic  treatise  on  political 
economy,  indicates  much  difference  of  opinion  and  uncertainty  in  matters  that  we 
were  once  told  by  British  economists  were  as  settled  as  the  laws  of  gravitation. 
The  fact  is  political  science,  like  all  other  branches  of  human  knowledge,  is  more 
or  less  in  a  transient  state,  and  free  and  full  discussion  by  sober  -and  intelligent 
men  is  sure  to  yield  valuable  results.  More  particularly  is  this  true  when  the 
discussion  is  illuminated  by  such  an  array  of  data  from  all  sources  as  may  be  found 
in  this  volume.  Those  of  us  who  believe  the  American  policy  of  protection  is  best 
adapted  to  our  citizenship  and  civilization  are  naturally  glad  to  welcome  the 
experiences  of  other  nations  when  they  sustain,  beyond  the  question  of  doubt,  the 
judgment  of  our  own  people,  though  our  own  belief  is  sustained  by  the  highest 
American  authorities  from  Washington  down  and  by  a  hundred  years  of  experi- 
ence.    We  know  what  it  has  already  accomplished  for  a  self-governed  people. 

The  world  knows  of  the  wonderful  progress  we  have  made.  The  experience 
of  the  United  States  in  diversifying  industries  and  developing  its  home  market 
has  contributed  more  or  less  to  the  growing  disregard  for  the  maxims  of  schoolmen 
and  theorists  and  increased  the  value  of  the  unimpeachable  testimony  of  trade  and 
experience. 

The  scope  of  this  volume  practically  covers  the  history  of  the  world's  trade  and 
commerce.  The  author  has  undoubtedly  devoted  years  of  patient  research  to 
gathering  and  arranging  his  material  and  presenting  his  argument.  After  a 
careful  examination  of  the  results  of  this  stupendous  piece  of  work  the  fair- 
minded  American  student  and  reader  will  close  the  book  with  the  conclusion  that 
in  our  own  American  policy  we  ha\-e  nothing  to  take  back,  nothing  to  apologize 
(sx) 


INTRODUCTION. 


for.  Under  similar  conditions  our  experience  has  been  precisely  the  same  as  the 
experience  of  other  nations.  In  some  ways  it  has  even  been  England's  own 
experience.  A  low  tariff  or  no  tariff  has  always  increased  the  importation  of 
foreign  goods  until  our  money  ran  out;  multiplied  our  foreign  obligations;  pro- 
duced a  balance  of  trade  against  the  country ;  supplanted  the  domestic  producer 
and  manufacturer;  impaired  the  farmer's  home  market  without  improving  his 
market  abroad;  undermined  domestic  prosperity;  decreased  the  industries  of  the 
nation;  diminished  the  value  of  nearly  all  our  property  and  investments;  and 
robbed  labor  of  its  just  rewards.  The  lower  the  tariff  the  more  widespread  and 
aggravated  have  been  these  conditions  which  paralyze  our  progress  and  industries. 
This  is  the  verdict  of  our  history,  and,  as  the  author  of  this  valuable  work 
demonstrates,  with  a  clearness  that  should  carry  conviction,  it  has  been  the  verdict 
of  history  in  the  case  of  other  nations,  if  facts  and  figures  may  be  relied  upon  to 
point  out  such  results. 

We  try  nations  as  they  appear  on  the  balance  sheet  of  the  world.  We  try 
systems  by  results  ;  we  are  too  practical  a  people  for  theory.  We  know  what  we 
have  done  and  are  doing  under  the  economic  system  we  advocate.  For  this  reason 
alone  the  labor  performed  by  the  author  of  Protection  and  Prosperity  is  justified 
and  the  results  will  be  of  permanent  value.  Fortunately  it  is  written  in  a  clear' 
plain  style  so  that  all  interested  in  the  important  question  discussed  can  compre- 
hend economic  propositions  which  too  often  have  been  presented  in  such  an  obscure 
manner  that  only  tho.se  learned  in  the  science  could  understand  them.  It  is  a  book 
that  may  well  be  read  and  studied  in  the  home,  for  it  deals  with  issues  that  affect 
every  hotisehold  in  the  land  and  which  each  and  every  voter  should  know  about 
and  comprehend  for  himself.  The  value  of  such  an  exhaustive  work  to  students 
comes  from  the  fact  that  the  author  shows  in  the  logical  order  pursued  the 
economic  conditions  which  suggested  and  brought  into  existence  protective  princi- 
ples, and  has  given  the  historical  origin  of  the  essential  principles.  While  writing 
from  the  protective  standpoint  there  is  no  indication  of  any  hobby  or  new  scheme 
of  political  economy.  The  apparent  endeavor  is  to  show  what  the  experience  of 
business  men  and  the  practices  of  nations  have  proven  to  be  wise,  just  and  benefi- 
cent ;  that  the  principles  of  protection  had  their  origin  with  the  institution  of 
society  and  governments,  and  are  a  necessary  part  of  that  policy  under  which 
civilization  has  advanced. 

There  are  numerous  books  on  the  tariff  and  kindred  questions,  but  I  recall  no 
work  that  even  attempts  to  cover  the  field  marked  out  by  Mr.  Curtiss. 

In  jMa.e  sense  it  is  a  commercial  history,.of_  the  world,  and  no  one  could  read  it 
without  forming  a  clear  idea  of  the  drift  of  the^worM^s  trade  and  commerce  since 
the  fourteenth  century.  From  another  point  of  view  it  is  one  of  the  strongest 
presentations  of  the  views  of  those  who  believe  that  the  question  of  finding 
employment  for  the  people  in  diversified  industries,  of  elevating  citizenship  and 
improving  home  life  lies  at  the  base  of  the  science  of  economics.  The  author,  in 
this  instance,  does  not  wait  and  bring  us  gradually  to  the  point  where  we  part 
company  with  the  free  trader,  but  he  thus  boldly  announces  it  in  the  first  chapter: 


) 


xxii  INTRODUCTION. 

' '  No  promineut  and  permanent  nation  has  j-et  neglected  the  development  of 
its  resources,  and  the  cultivation,  to  the  highest  degree  possible,  of  its  own  natural 
products,  and  the  fullest  emploj'ment  of  its  labor,  without  suffering  a  severe 
penalty.  The  people  of  no  nation  in  the  historj'  of  the  world  has  ever  prospered 
under  a  policy  which  sacrificed  its  home  industries  to  build  up  and  develop  the 
resources  and  give  employment  to  the  labor  of  foreign  states.  The  controversy 
upon  these  questions  has  arisen  out  of  the  distinctions  stated.  Those  advocating 
the  doctrine  of  free  trade  teach  that  the  prosperity  of  nations,  regardless  of  their 
situation  or  economic  conditions,  can  most  surely  be  promoted  through  foreign 
exchanges;  while  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  protection  believe  that  countries 
with  a  great  diversity  of  natural  resources  can  become  more  prosperous,  their  people 
reach  the  highest  social  condition,  greatest  independence  and  prosperity,  by  the 
encouragement  and  development  of  native  resources;  holding  also  that  foreign 
exchanges  should  be  treated  only  as  a  part  of  an  industrial  sj-stem,  having  for  its 
basis  the  employment  of  the  labor  and  capital  of  a  country  in  domestic  production 
and  exchanges." 

With  this  unhesitating  declaration  of  sound  principles  the  author  begins  his 
story  by  pointing  out  the  general  division  of  trade  and  commerce.  The  industrial 
■histor>'  of  natious  of  antiquity  up  to  the  eleventh  century,  or  as  much  thereof  as 
may  be  deemed  pertinent  to  the  discussion,  is  unfolded.  The  narrative  then  in 
succession  points  out  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Italian  cities,  the  league 
of  German  cities  in  central  and  northern  Europe,  as  well  as  the  Dutch  and  Flemish, 
developed  their  trade,  commerce  and  industries  during  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
commercial  history  of  these  cities  is  brought  down  to  the  year  1650.  The  com- 
mercial history  of  England  is  next  taken  up,  from  the  time  of  the  Roman 
invasion,  and  in  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  pages  brought  down  to  the 
present  time.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  England  pursued  a  policy  of  free 
trade  up  to  nearly  the  fifteenth  century,  relying  upon  the  Italians  and  Dutch  for 
all  implements,  tools  and  clothing;  that  even  the  wholesale  and  retail  trade  of 
the  country  was  monopolized  by  aliens;  that  as  long  as  this  condition  pre\-ailed 
no  industrial  progress  is  found  to  have  taken  place;  that  the  first  steps  toward  a 
domestic  industrial  policy  is  found  in  a  revolt  on  the  part  of  English  merchants  in 
some  of  the  cities  against  the  competition  of  alien  merchants,  which  resulted 
in  their  exclusion  from  the  wholesale  and  retail  trade  of  the  countrj-.  This  was 
followed  by  the  granting  of  charters  to  Trade  Guilds,  which  became  industrial 
training  schools  for  the  building  up  of  an  artisan  class;  and  the  adoption  of  legis- 
lation which  secured  to  them  the  home  market  by  excluding  the  import  of  a  large 
number  of  tools,  implements  and  various  fabrics;  that  a  vigorous  policy  of  pro- 
tection was  entered  upon  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  was 
continued  and  applied  with  great  vigor  until  1846.  The  encouragement  given 
to  shipping,  fisheries,  and  the  establishment  of  trading  companies,  induced  the 
building  of  a  merchant  marine  and  the  e.stabli.shment  of  foreign  trade;  while  the 
protection  given  to  domestic  industries  stimulated  and  fostered  the  commercial 
and  industrial  classes  and  the  establishment  of  manufactories,  until  Great  Britain 


INTRODUCTION.  xxiii 

became  the  workshop  of  the  world.  While  these  facts  have  been  pointed  out  in  a 
general  way,  the  historical  details,  from  a  protectionist  point  of  view,  have  not 
been  so  connectedlj-  and  fully  presented  in  any  other  work  which  has  come  under 
my  notice. 

The  historical  facts  as  herein  presented  leave  little  doubt  that  it  was  through 
the  policy  of  protection  that  Great  Britain  became  the  richest  and  most  powerful 
nation  on  the  globe.  It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  as  a  rule  the  advocates  of  free 
trade  have  almost  exclusively  been  the  chroniclers  of  this  period  of  England's 
industrial  history.  They  have  handled  these  facts  so  often  and  so  absolutely  to 
their  own  liking  that  the  author  has  pointed  out  with  clearness  how  grievously 
the  truth  has  been  distorted.  Mr.  Curtiss  seems  to  have  his  facts  well  in  hand 
and  one  of  the  most  satisfactory  features  of  the  book  is  that  he  gives  without  stint 
his  authorities.  That  there  will  be  controversy  over  the  chapter  in  which  he 
traces  the  growth  of  industries  and  industrial  prosperity  from  the  close  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars  until  the  adoption  of  free  trade,  I  have  no  doubt;  but,  never- 
theless, he  has  the  data  well  in  hand,  which  he  freely  submits  to  the  reader  to 
sustain  his  end  of  the  question.  The  facts  and  figures  here  produced,  in  a  measure 
at  least,  refute  the  oft-repeated  misrepresentation  of  free  trade  writers  that  British 
industries  were  languishing  under  protection,  and  that  this  was  the  principal  cause 
which  induced  the  English  to  abandon  their  policy.  Supported  by  .statistical  infor- 
mation, it  is  shown  that  the  last  half  century  under  protection  was  a  period  of  mar- 
velous growth  and  development,  in  the  increase  of  population,  the  growth  of  cities, 
the  progress  made  in  agriculture,  manufacturing,  mining,  trade  and  commerce. 

It  was  undoubtedly  the  desire  for  cheapness  in  production  that  would  enable 
Great  Britain  to  control  the  markets  of  the  world  that  induced  the  British  peo- 
ple to  abandon  protection  and  adopt  free  trade.  It  may  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  through  the  use  of  machinery,  the  accumulation  of  capital,  the  efficiency 
of  artisans,  a  vast  colonial  system,  foreign  trade  and  industries,  the  English 
people  had  become  in  advance  of  all  other  nations,  and  able  through  a  sy.stem 
of  free  trade  to  invade  all  foreign  countries  with  their  fabrics;  suppress  and 
prevent  the  establishment  of  rival  industries  and  control  and  monopolize  the 
markets  of  the  world.  This  cry  of  • '  cheapness ' '  rang  through  England  fifty 
years  ago.  It  was  the  voice  and  philosophy  of  Cobden  ;  it  was  the  false  and 
alluring  appeal  urged  for  the  reversal  of  Great  Britain's  industrial  policy  from 
protection  to  free  trade.  It  was  the  hypocritical  cant  against  which  the  beloved 
Kingsley  thundered  his  bold  denunciations — that  dear  and  revered  churchman, 
whose  memory  is  cherLshed  wherever  the  English  tongue  is  spoken.  Here  is 
his  characterization  of  it  : 

"Next  you  have  the  Manchester  school,  from  which  Heaven  defend  us! 
For  all  narrow,  conceited,  hypocritical,  and  anarchic  .schemes  of  the  universe  the 
Cobden  and  Bright  one  is  exactly  the  worst.  To  pretend  to  be  the  workmen's 
friends  by  keeping  down  the  price  of  bread  when  all  they  want  thereby  is  to 
keep  down  wages  and  increase  profits,  and  in  the  meantime  to  widen  the  gulf 
between  the  workingman  and  all  that  is  time-honored  and  chivalrous  in  English 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION. 

society,  that  they  may  make  the  men  their  divided  slaves — that  is,  perhaps,  half 
unconsciously,  for  there  are  excellent  men  among  them,  the  game  of  the  Man- 
chester school." 

The  point  is  well  brought  out  by  Mr.  Curtiss  that  it  was  not  the  tariff  laws 
on  English  statute  books,  but  the  tariff  barriers  raised  by  other  countries  and 
restricting  British  markets,  which  became  the  essential  cause  of  England's 
objection  to  protection;  that  the  English  could  not  successfully  assail  protection 
in  other  countries  until  they  at  first  abandoned  it  themselves;  that  by  repealing 
their  own  protective  laws  which  had  ceased  to  be  of  any  benefit  to  them  under 
the  economic  conditions  then  existing,  they  could  proclaim  the  doctrine  of  free 
trade  to  the  world  with  consistency  and  with  a  better  chance  of  breaking  down 
foreign  rivals  and  maintaining  their  commercial  supremacy.  The  facts  undeniably 
show  that  this  was  the  great  cause  which  moved  the  English  people  to  abandon 
the  policy  of  protection.  The  history  of  the  free  trade  movement  is  carefully 
traced  from  its  inception  to  its  consummation  and  forms  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  valuable  features  of  this  book. 

It  is  a  common  assertion  of  free  traders  that  immediately  following  the  adop- 
tion of  free  tra.k-  b.\  luigland  in  1846,  great  industrial  progress  was  made,  as 
shown  by  increased  imports  and  exports  and  the  expansion  of  manufactories. 
•The  author  takes  issue  with  those  holding  this  view,  claiming  that  the  progress 
was  not  due  to  the  adoption  of  free  trade,  but  that  it  was  a  continuation  of  that 
steady  industrial  growth  and  development  which  was  inaugurated  through  protec- 
.  tion  and  had  continued  for  more  than  two  centuries,  aided  by  economic  conditions 
such  as  the  discoveries  of  gold,  the  beginning  of  the  period  of  railroad  building, 
and  the  substitution  of  steam  for  sailing  vessels,  which  also  gave  an  impetus  to  the 
industrial  life  of  all  great  conunercial  nations.  Yet  at  this  time,  by  reason  of  the 
vast  accumulation  of  wealth  and  the  commercial  and  industrial  advantages  already 
acquired  through  protection,  the  English  people  were  better  fitted  to  utilize  these 
causes  and  profit  by  them  than  any  other  nation.  However  this  may  be,  the  great 
practical  success  of  free  trade  during  the  first  quarter  of  a  century  undoubtedly  con- 
tributed largely  to  the  prestige  enjoyed  by  the  Manchester  school  of  political  econonn-. 
The  prophecies  and  a.ssumptions  of  Cobden  and  his  as.sociates  come  under 
review.  The  assertions  which  they  made  as  to  how  their  free  trade  theories 
would  operate  when  put  into  actual  practice,  are  shown  to  have  been  entirely 
false;  that  when  France,  Germany  and  Continental  countries  had  built  up  their 
vast  manufacturing  systems  under  protection  and  entered  the  field  to  contest 
markets  with  Great  Britain,  then  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world 
the  principles  of  free  trade  were  put  to  a  practical  test.  The  effect  on  the  labor 
and  industries  of  the  United  Kingdom,  including  agriculture  and  manufacturing, 
since  thev  had  become  subjected  through  their  system  of  free  imports,  to  .sharp  com- 
petition from  Continental  rivals  from  about  1865  to  the  present  time,  is  then  con- 
sidered at  considerable  length.  The  commercial  history  of  England  becomes  more 
important  since  the  adoption  of  free  trade  because  it  is  the  only  example  we  have  in 
recent  centuries  of  a  large  commercial  nation  subjecting  itself  for  any  considerable 


INTRODUCTION.  xxv 

length  of  time  to  the   unrestricted  competition  of  strong   competitors.       Great 
care  has  evidently  been  exercised  in  preparing  the  data  for  this  part  of  the  work. 

Here  may  be  found  some  of  the  most  valuable  tables  bearing  on  these  points 
ever  compiled.  These  tables,  showing  the  increase  of  imports  of  competing 
commodities  and  the  decline  of  their  exports  of  domestic  productions,  present  an 
array  of  important  facts  to  be  considered.  The  injurious  effect  of  this  system  of 
iree  imports  upon  the  labor  and  capital  of  the  country,  is  shown  by  the  evidence 
of  British  manufacturers  and  business  men  given  before  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Trade  and  Industries  in  1885  and  1886.  In  these  reports  may  be  studied  the 
destruction  of  agriculture,  the  silk  and  many  other  industries,  the  impoverishment 
of  the  people,  the  impairment  of  their  consuming  power,  the  diminution  of  the 
home  market,  the  shrinkage  in  values,  reduction  of  wages,  lack  of  employment, 
the  vast  army  of  idlers  and  unemployed,  the  emigration  of  capital,  industries  and 
artisans  seeking  investment  and  employment  in  protected  countries,  all  furnish  an 
array  of  indisputable  facts  against  which  no  amount  of  free  trade  sophistries  and 
theories  can  prevail.  England  is  the  only  countrj-  which  imposes  a  tariff  exclu- 
sively for  revenue.  This  has  been  her  policy  for  half  a  century.  It  has  therefore 
been  tried,  and  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances.  Is  the  above  picture  of 
her  condition  inviting  to  Americans  ?  Is  the  condition  of  the  great  bod>-  of  her 
people  encouraging,  or  hopeful,  or  assuring  ?  Listen  to  the  words  of  the  late 
Cardinal  Manning,  written  in  December,  1890,  and  published  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  an  English  magazine.      No  one  will  question  their  sincerity  and  truth  : 

"There  is  no  doubt  that  free  trade,  freedom  of  contract,  buying  in  the 
cheapest  market  and  selling  in  the  dearest,  are  axioms  of  commercial  prudence.  . 
They  are  hardly  worthy  of  being  called  a  science.  Nevertheless,  this  freedom  of 
trade  has  immensely  multiplied  all  branches  of  commerce  and  developed  the 
energies  of  all  our  industrial  population.  But  it  has  created  two  things — the  ' 
irresponsible  wealth  which  .stagnates  and  the  starvation  wages  of  the  labor  market.  ' 
This  cheapest  market  is  the  market  of  the  lacklands,  penniless  and  helpless.  In 
four  of  our  western  counties  wages  are  so  low  that  men  come  to  London  by 
thousands  every  year,  and,  being  here,  crowd  the  dock-gates  and  underbid  the 
permanent  workingmen,  who  have  already  reason  not  to  be  content  with  their 
hire.  We  have  these  two  worlds  always  and  openly  face  to  face — the  world 
of  wealth  and  the  world  of  want — the  world  of  wealth  saying  in  his  heart 
'  I  sit  as  queen  over  all  toilers  and  traders,'  and  the  world  of  want  not 
knowing  what  may  be  on  the  morrow.  Every  city  and  town  has  its  unem- 
ployed. Millions  are  in  poverty.  Agriculture  languishes;  land  is  going  out 
of  cultivation;  trades  are  going  down;  mills  and  furnaces  are  working  half  time; 
strikes  run  through  every  industry.  Is  there  a  blight  upon  our  mountainous 
wealth?  At  this  day  we  have  three  millions  of  poor  who  in  the  course  of  the 
year  are  relieved  in  some  way  by  the  poor  laws." 

Does  this  plain  statement  from  this  great  Christian  teacher  and  philanthropist, 
who  speaks  from  knowledge,  incline  Americans  to  adopt  a  policy  which  has  made 
these  things  possible  and  true  ?     Do  the  conditions  he  describes  offer  anything  to 


xx\T  INTRODUCTIOK. 

the  agriculturist  of  this  country  better  than  he  has  alread)-,  or  so  good;  or  to  the 
laborer  a  hope  or  an  aspiration  which  does  not  make  the  heart  sick;  or  to  our 
countrymen  generally,  whatever  may  be  their  occupation,  a  wish  to  transplant  the 
want  and  misery  here? 

Turning  from  England  and  its  free  trade  experiment,  the  author  devotes  150 
pages  to  an  interesting  examination  of  recent  tariff  legislation  and  the  growth  of 
industries  in  Continental  countries.  From  material  drawn  from  many  sources, 
mostly  ofEcial,  he  has  constructed  a  brief  history  of  the  tariff  legislation  and 
industrial  development  of  France,  Germany,  Russia,  Austria,  Italy,  and  other 
countries.  It  is  impossible  to  refer  to  these  chapters  in  detail  in  the  space  allotted 
for  this  introduction,  but  each  has  its  own  value. 

The  chapter  on  Germany  is  of  special  interest.  The  speeches  and  economic 
polic)'  of  Bismarck  furnish  a  splendid  endorsement  of  the  policy  of  protection.  In 
fact,  the  results  of  protection  in  Germany,  Russia,  France  and  all  Continental 
countries  are  shown  to  be  very  satisfactory.  An  important  point  brought  out  and 
apparently  sustained  in  every  instance  by  the  experience  of  Continental  countries 
and  of  the  United  States,  is  that  where  an  industrial  nation  has  for  a  short  period 
reduced  its  duties  and  practised,  or  approached,  free  trade,  the  result  has  been 
disastrous,  and  the  nation  has  been  compelled  in  a  short  time  to  return  to  the 
policy  of  protection  in  order  to  preserve  and  restore  to  life  its  crippled  and  decay- 
ing industries.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  the  policy  of  protection  wherever  pur- 
sued, whether  for  a  short  or  long  period,  has  imparted  life  and  activity,  resulted  in 
the  development  of  domestic  industries,  thrift,  enterprise,  prosperity  and  the  accu- 
mulation of  wealth.  Its  benefits  have  ever  manifested  themselves  in  the  improved 
condition  of  the  masses.  The  longer  and  the  more  continuously  this  police- 
has  been  pursued,  the  more  steady  and  vigorous  has  become  the  growth  and 
development  of  all  productive  industries.  The  data  Mr.  Curtiss  marshals  in 
support  of  this  view  would  seem  to  be  reliable  and  incontrovertible.  In  short, 
these  chapters  in  themselves  go  a  long  way  in  establishing  that  the  industrial 
development  and  material  progress  of  all  nations  of  the  world  have  been  due  to 
the  development  of  domestic  resources  through  protective  legislation. 

The  chapters  of  the  work  devoted  to  the  tariff  question  in  the  United  States 
are  admirable  and  comprise  a  complete,  although  brief,  history  of  the  tariff  legis- 
lation of  the  United  States  from  and  including  the  colonial  period  to  the  present 
time.  The  statistical  information  collected  and  embodied  in  this  part  is  official 
and  arranged  with  considerable  skill.  Mr.  Curtiss,  in  his  investigation  of  tariff 
legislation  in  our  own  country,  from  the  earliest  times  to  1S60,  substantially  agrees 
with  a  majority  of  the  statesmen,  economists  and  historians  who  have  preceded 
him.  He  shows  beyond  question  that  the  result  has  not  been  different  from  that 
of  other  countries  when  protection  has  been  extended  to  their  industries,  or  when 
they  have  been  exposed  to  the  ruinous  competition  of  rivals  possessed  of  superior 
advantages.  The  lower  the  tariff  the  more  widespread  and  aggravated  have  been 
tho.se  conditions  which  paralyze  our  progress  and  industries. 

Industry  and  property  were  excessively  depressed   from   1784  to   1790,  and 


INTRODUCTION.  xxvii 

again  from  1818  to  1824,  under  the  low  tariffs  then  in  operation.  Also  from  1837 
to  the  end  of  1842,  under  the  compromise  act  of  1833,  and  again  from  1846  to 
1861,  under  the  free  trade  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857.  The  depression  which  pre- 
vailed during  all  these  periods  was  felt  in  every  individual  pursuit  and  national 
industry.  On  the  contrary  the  industries  and  energies  of  the  nation  revived  as 
if  by  magic  from  1825  to  1834,  under  the  protective  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828;  and 
also  from  1843  to  the  end  of  1846  under  the  protective  tariff  of  1842.  Our 
progress  in  industrial  development  and  prosperity  from  1861  to  1892  finds  no 
parallel  in  the  world's  history. 

The  facts  and  figures  brought  together  in  convenient  form  in  Part  VI  of  the 
volume  will  be  invaluable  for  reference  and  in  proving  for  all  time  to  come 
exactly  what  a  judicious  protective  tariff  has  accomplished  for  the  United  States. 
These  data  cover  nearly  everj'  branch  of  industry  and  comprise  the  latest  and 
most  reliable  statistical  information  obtainable  in  all  branches  of  our  industrial 
progress.  Thirty  years  of  protection  has  brought  us  to  the  first  rank  in  agricul- 
ture, in  mining  and  in  manufacturing  development.  We  lead  all  nations  in  these 
three  great  departments  of  industry.  We  have  outstripped  even  the  United 
Kingdom,  which  had  centuries  the  start  of  us.  As  I  have  said  above  her  fiscal 
policy  for  fifty  years  past  has  been  the  free  trade  revenue  tariff  policy,  ours  for 
thirty-two  years  the  protective  tariif  policy.  Tried  by  any  te.st,  measured  by  any 
standard,  we  lead  all  the  rest  of  the  world.  Protection  has  vindicated  itself.  It 
cannot  be  helped  by  eulogy  nor  hurt  by  defamation.  It  has  worked  out  its  own 
demonstration,  and  presents  in  the  sight  of  the  whole  world  its  matchless  trophies. 
It  can  not  be  cried  down  by  false  names  nor  injured  by  offensive  epithets  nor  can 
it  any  longer  suffer  from  falsehood,  nor  the  forebodings  of  the  fal.se  prophet.  It 
has  triumphed  over  all  its  traducers  at  home  and  abroad.  It  has  made  the  lives 
of  the  masses  of  our  countrymen  sweeter  and  brighter,  and  has  entered  the  homes 
of  America  carrying  comfort  and  cheer  and  courage.  It  gives  a  premium  to 
human  energy,  and  awakens  the  noblest  aspirations  in  the  breasts  of  men. 
Our  own  experience  shows  that  it  is  best  for  our  citizen.ship  and  our  civilization, 
and  that  it  opens  up  a  higher  and  better  destiny  for  our  people. 

In  the  concluding  chapter  the  importance  of  the  development  of  native 
resources  and  industries  is  emphasized  with  considerable  force.  The  author 
rightly  concludes  that  through  a  diversifying  of  industries  and  pursuits  increased 
opportunities  are  afforded  for  employment  and  that  what  he  calls  the  "spendable 
income"  of  the  masses  is  augmented.  This  is  sound  doctrine,  and  recent  events 
have  brought  it  forcibly  to  the  attention  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  And 
moreover  this  labor  must  be  well  paid.  The  character  of  its  citizenship  is  of 
more  importance  to  the  Republic  than  the  cheapness  of  its  clothes.  Not  only  must 
our  national  policy  be  one  affording  the  largest  opportunities  for  the  masses  to 
obtain  employment,  but  the  wages  must  be  sufficient  to  keep  in  comfort  those 
engaged  in  gainful  occupations,  to  enable  them  to  educate  their  children  and  lay 
up  something  for  old  age.  There  must,  indeed,  be  something  for  the  American 
citizen  more  than  cheap  clothes.     There  must  be  some  higher  incentive  than  a 


xxviii  INTEODVCTION. 

cheap  coat  and  a  bare  subsistence.  The  farmer's  products  must  bring  him  fair 
returns  for  his  toil  and  investment.  The  workingman's  wages  must  be  governed 
by  his  work  and  worth,  and  not  by  what  he  can  barely  live  upon.  He  must  havt 
wages  that  bring  hope  and  heart  and  ambition,  which  give  promise  of  a  future 
brighter  and  better  than  the  past,  which  shall  promote  his  comfort  and  independ- 
ence, and  which  shall  stimulate  him  to  a  higher  and  better  and  more  intelligent 
citizenship. 

There  would  seem  to  be  a  good  reason  for  the  publication  of  a  work  of  this 
sort  and  the  author  himself  supplies  it.'  In  a  letter  to  a  friend  he  .said  that  as  a 
lawyer  and  student  of  economic  questions  for  many  years  he  was  continually 
.struck  with  what  is  unquestionably  true,  namely,  that  the  free  trade  side  of  the 
question  had  outdone  protectionists  in  the  writing  of  books;  that  the  commercial 
history  of  the  world  had  been  written  from  a  free  trade  point  of  view,  and 
brought  out  prominently,  and  put  forward  as  unquesstioned,  statements  which 
had  no  real  historical  basis.  He  found  there  was  no  history  of  the  tariff  question 
in  Germany,  France,  Russia  and  other  European  countries  from  which  a  student 
could  get  even  a  connected  outline  of  their  tariff  policies  and  industrial  develop- 
ment He  also  found  that  the  growth  of  industries  in  Great  Britain  and  their  tariff 
legislation  had  Iteen  written  by  free  traders,  and  that  no  protectionist  writer  had 
attempted  a  connected  historical  review  of  the  industrial  development  and  tariff 
legislation  of  the  United  Kingdom.  jOf  the  United  States,  however,  he  found  an 
abundance  of  good  books  and  ably  written  pamphlets  on  all  phases  of  the  ques- 
tion, yet  there  was  not  in  any  one  book  a  connected  historical  and  statistical 
account  of  our  tariff  legislation  and  industrial  development  from_  the  organization 
of  our  government  to  the  present  time.  Mr.  Curtiss  has  undoubtedly  carried  the 
statistical  information  farther  than  any  other  writer,  and  embodied  in  it  a  series 
of  tables  taken  from  official  sources,  which  will  be  of  permanent  value. 

By  no  means  the  least  of  the  merits  of  the  treatise  is  the  clear,  vigorous  and 
readable  style  in  which  it  is  written,  which  with  the  useful  lessons  it  teaches  and 
the  multitude  of  facts  it  brings  together  for  the  first  time,  make  it  a  book  every 
intelligent  American  citizen  may  read  with  profit.  Indeed  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  the  faithfulness  with  which  the  work  has  been  performed  should  com- 
mend itself  to  the  judgment  of  all  loyal  and  patriotic  Americans  regardless  of 
party  affiliations  or  previously  conceived  economic  views.  It  .should  have  wide 
reading  and  study. 


^eJ—^^' 


INTRODUCTION. 


II. 


From  an  examination  of  the  present  treatise  on  protection,  I  am  convinced 
that  Mr.  George  B.  Curtiss,  the  author,  has  performed  an  invaluable  service  to 
the  people  at  large  and  to  the  political  economists  and  thinkers  who  are  seeking 
answers  to  the  many  questions  which  the  subject  involves.  Tracing  the  tariff  his- 
tory of  the  leading  commercial  nations  of  the  world,  he  carries  the  narrative  down 
to  the  problems  that  press  for  solution  in  this  country  to-day.  His  novel,  clear 
and  convincing  discu-ssion  of  the  tariif  question  in  Great  Britain  and  Continental 
countries,  deserves  the  highest  praise. 

The  tariff  historj'  of  the  United  States  is  in  such  an  entanglement  of  error 
and  misrepresentation  that  the  work  of  a  clear-headed  investigator  and  writer  is 
particularly  welcome.  The  public  have  hitherto  suffered  less  from  lack  of  infor- 
mation than  from  the  overwhelming  mass  of  confusion  and  misinformation.  Mr. 
Curtiss  does  not  content  himself  with  bare  statements  of  economic  conditions,  but 
he  supplies  his  readers  with  data  upon  which  to  base  their  conclusions.  An 
examination  of  some  of  the  tables  embraced  in  his  work  will  do  more  to  clear  away 
the  mists  that  surround  the  effects  of  the  American  tariff  policy  than  would  result 
from  the  perusal  of  volumes  of  campaign  literature.  By  means  of  facts  and  figures 
compiled  from  what  mu.st  be  regarded  as  the  most  reliable  sources,  he  .shows  that 
the  scaling  down  of  the  tariff  has  invariably  been  followed  by  reduction  of  wages, 
loss  of  employment,  displacement  of  capital  and  financial  stringency,  and  that  the 
reverse  conditions  prevailed  so  long  as  a  protective  tariff  was  effectively  main- 
tained. 

The  author  is  avowedly  a  protectionist.  He  thinks  protection  has  been  a 
most  important  factor  in  our  national  progress  and  therefore  favors  its  continuance, 
but,  in  dealing  with  the  subject,  I  do  not  believe  that  he  can  justly  be  charged 
with  a  partisan  perversion  of  the  facts.  The  people  have  long  needed  a  clear  and 
compact  tariff  history  which  should  avoid  the  errors  and  over-zealous  statements 
of  economic  doctrinaires,  and  apply  the  principles  of  the  historical  .school  of  politi- 
cal economists  to  the  commercial  history  of  the  United  States.  These  require- 
ments the  author's  work  fully  meets,  while  at  the  same  time  it  presents  a  more 
comprehensive  and  thorough  discussion  of  the  protective  policy  in  its  general  rela- 
tion to  the  economic  advancement  of  civilized  nations  than  an>'  other  work  which 
has  come  under  my  notice. 


,=,^^^  ^'^^^^^^T' 


> 


ixTEODunriox. 


The  book  which  Mr.  Curtiss  has  written  is  unlike  any  other  which  has  been 
presented  on  the  subject  in  its  method  of  treatment,  and  in  its  width  of  rauge. 
Most  books  on  the  subject  have  been  too  much  a  discussion  of  what  were  claimed 
to  be  principles,  and  too  little  a  discussion  of  facts. 

No  subject  which  has  largely  concerned  the  hopes  and  fears  of  mankind  has 
failed  to  undergo  the  experience  which  political  economy  has  undergone.  The 
natural  tendency  of  mankind  is  to  evolve  things  out  of  the  inner  consciousness  and 
to  make  theories  which  account  for  the  facts  already  known,  and  then  strenuously 
contend  for  these  theories  in  defiance  of  the  facts  which  afterwards  become  known. 
Another  delusion  and  snare  of  human  reason  is  that  method  which  for  the  sake  of 
simplicity  leaves  out  some  facts  so  as  to  make  the  reasoning  clearer,  and  forgets 
that  these  facts  have  been  left  out,  and  then  goes  on  to  declare  that  what  happens 
in  the  ideal  world  where  facts  are  left  out  will  happen  just  the  same  in  a  real  world 
where  the  facts  are  always  left  in.  To  reason  that  the  actions  of  an  imaginary 
man  who  desires  wealth  and  wealth  alone  will  be  the  same  as  that  of  a  real  man 
with  all  his  hopes  and  fears  may  be  an  excellent  mental  gymnastic  but  can  never 
be  much  more  productive  than  the  swinging  of  Indian  clubs  or  the  putting  up  of 
dumb  bells.  Exercise  of  the  muscles  may  help  and  so  may  mental  exercise  if  it 
does  not  mislead. 

This  book  while  it  has  a  suitable  discussion  of  principles  which  is  well 
worth  reading  and  very  valuable,  devotes  itself  mainly  to  a  recital  of  facts  which 
tend  to  .show  what  system  of  economics  leads  to  the  best  results  in  the  actual 
practice  of  the  world.  Such  a  book  if  faithfully  written  can  not  fail  to  add  to  the 
prosperity  of  the  United  States  for  it  is  true  history,  which  is  philosophy  teaching 
by  examples.  It  is  in  direct  contrast  with  those  systems  which  teach  by  general 
statements  which  comprehend  all  the  facts  which  the  author  can  conjecture  and 
leave  out  all  the  rest.  Such  statements  may  be  very  alluring  to  the  brightest 
minds  because  they  seem  so  simple,  but  they  will  never  do  for  a  practical  world. 
Some  time  ago  in  his  laboratory  a  chemist  demonstrated  that  corn  could  be  made 
into  a  sugar  which  tasted  like  real  sugar  and  could  be  made  at  such  a  price  as 
would  drive  off  the  face  of  the  earth  the  tropical  cane  and  the  northern  sugar  beet. 
Able  men  took  hold  of  the  invention,  put  two  millions  of  real  money  into  it  and 
discovered  that  the  new  sugar  would  not  make  candy  or  cake.  Now  a  sugal 
which  will  make  neither  candy  nor  cake  has  the  same  relation  to  real  sugar  thatj 
most  books  on  political  economy  have  to  real  business.  Luckily  these  men  had 
brains  and  ability  enough  to  turn  the  plant  to  other  uses,  and  so  instead  of  leaving 
the  ruins  to  remain  as  a  visible  monument  of  the  triumph  of  facts  over  the  wisest 
theory  the  money  put  into  the  enterprise  was  saved  but  the  anticipated  fortune  was 
lost.     Professors  of  political  economy  are  seldom  so  fortunate. 

One  of  the  greatest  sources  of  error  in  our  home  discussions  of  the  theories  of 
free  trade  and  protection  is  found  in  our  ignoi^ance  of  English  economic  histor>-. 


INTRODUCTION.  xxsi 

Most  people  have  the  strangest  ideas  of  the  Cobden  movement  in  England  and 
think  it  resembled  and  justified  the  insurrection  which  led  to  the  Wilson  bill 
which  now  adorns  our  statute  book  and  devastates  our  land.  The  calm  and 
careful  history  in  this  book  of  the  protection  system  in  England  which  preceded 
the  Cobden  movement,  and  the  history  of  the  Cobden  movement  itself,  will  go  far 
to  rectify  the  false  ideas  which  have  been  so  long  prevalent,  and  if  it  contained 
nothing  else  would  be  worth  all  the  book  will  cost  and  all  the  trouble  of  under- 
standing the  story  therein  narrated.  In  1846  the  whole  world  was  carried  away 
by  the  same  false  ideas  which  the  Cobden  movement  made  prevalent  in  England. 
Everybodj^  was  taken  with  the  notion  that  there  were  some  heaven  ordained 
places  where  some  things  must  be  made,  and  that  whoever  tried  to  make  them 
elsewhere  was  fighting  God  and  Nature.  Fifty  years  of  hard  experience  have 
taught  us  that  God  and  Nature  are  not  to  be  found  out  and  disclosed  by  every 
gentleman  of  literary  tastes  who  could  make  a  sjdlogism  or  reason  on  facts  with 
half  the  facts  left  out.  Slowly  but  steadily  the  world  has  found  out  that  this 
doctrine  of  letting  things  take  care  of  themselves  is  only  another  name  for  indo- 
lence, which  could  never  understand  God  or  keep  the  weeds  from  growing  where 
the  sunny  gardens  were.  This  book  is  also  the  story  of  how  the  nations  discov- 
ered that  the  best  way  to  be  protected  and  prosperous  was  not  to  leave  things  alone 
but  to  use  their  brains  and  make  things  better.  Some  people  in  the  less  advanced 
parts,  even  of  this  countrs%  still  think  that  the  sole  purpose  of  government  is  to 
keep  people  from  cutting  each  other's  throats,  utterly  oblivious  of  the  fact  that  it 
is  under  such  government  that  the  most  throats  get  cut.  France,  Germany, 
Russia,  Austria,  the  United  States  and  even  England  have  tried  the  experiments 
and  have  all  suffered.  All  but  England  have  reformed,  and  to-day  half  of  Eng- 
land's capital  is  invested  not  in  England  but  in  lands  which  have  resisted  England 
and  shunned  her  recent  example. 

This  book  gives  the  history  of  experiments  tried  all  over  the  world  of  the  two 
systems  and  the  results  which  have  followed.  It  teaches  what  the  facts  teach  and 
nothing  more.  It  does  not  teach  that  this  law  or  that  law,  this  rate  or  that  rate, 
is  essential  to  national  .success  ;  for  rates  change  with  circumstances  and  laws  with 
conditions ;  but  it  teaches  that  protection  whether  it  be  at  one  rate  or  another, 
whether  it  be  by  one  law  or  another,  so  long  as  it  is  protection,  is  the  sole  essential. 
Therefore  this  book  does  not  undertake  to  urge  one  law  or  another.  What  law 
there  shall  be,  what  rates  shall  exist,  is  the  province  of  the  statesman  whose  duty  it 
is  to  accomplish  protection  for  the  country  with  the  minimum  of  disturbance  of 
preconceived  notions  and  with  due  regard  to  the  prejudices  and  the  state  of 
knowledge  of  the  nation. 

Perhaps,  as  stated  by  Professor  George  Gunton  in  his  admirable  treatise  on 
Social  Economics,  the  true  test  of  n^ljonal  prggpsiity  is  the  nuniber.  of  the 
unemployed.  If  proper  heed  were  given  to  this  idea  fewer  people  would  lose  their 
heads  in  the  labyrinth  which  is  created  by  the  discussion  of  prices.  It  used  to  be 
a  very  taking  idea  to  talk  about  low  prices  and  to  picture  the  happiness  which  was 
sure  to  come  when  things  were  cheap.     We  have  had  three  years  of  delicious 


f 


xxxii  IXriiODUCTION. 

cheapness.  Not  only  are  goods  cheap  but  labor  has  become  cheap  ;  not  only  does 
the  housekeeper  buy  cheap  but  the  farmer  has  to  sell  cheap  for  it  is  the  same 
identical  transaction,  and  no  method  has  been  discovered  on  earth  in  the  same 
transaction  to  make  the  purchase  cheap  and  the  sale  dear.  Nor  is  this  all.  There 
are  fewer  sales  and  fewer  purchases.  That  means  less  work;  less  work  means  more 
idle  men;  idle  men  do  not  create  wealth,  they  only  consume  it.  The  more  idle 
men  the  less  the  wealth  of  a  nation.  And  that  would  be  equally  true  if  a  cent 
would  buy  a  dollar's  worth. 

Perfection  of  the  prosperity  of  a  nation  cannot  be  reached  until  all  are 
employed.  When  all  are  employed  the  nation  is  doing  its  maximum  of  work  and 
creating  all  the  wealth  which  it  is  capable  of  creating.  Then  also  takes  place 
what  is  equally  essential— the  greatest  approximation  to  a  fair  and  honest  distri- 
bution of  the  wealth  produced.  With  the  people  all  at  work  those  who  work  can 
dictate  their  terms  subject  only  to  the  limitation  of  proper  profit  to  those  workers 
who  subsist  by  profit  and  not  liy  wages  ;  who  take  the  risk  while  others  take  the 
certainties. 

Somehow  or  other,  times  like  these  are  great  educators.  How  very  fine  used 
to  be  the  sneer  about  lifting  one's  self  by  the  boot  straps  !  How  clear  used  also 
to  seem  the  denion.stration  that  taxes  could  create  nothing  !  What  a  fine,  large 
mouth  the  consumer  had  those  days,  and  how  puny  and  unworthy  seemed  the 
hands  of  the  producer  !  Now  the  unfilled  mouth  has  discovered  who  owns  the 
hands.  This  book  will  show  you  that  this  has  been  the  history  of  nations  a  hundred 
times  ;  nay,  it  has  been  the  history  of  our  own  nation  half  a  .score  of  times  in  our 
short  life.  I,ike  the  Spanish  Grandee  in  the  cemetery,  we  were  well  and  wanted 
to  be  better,  took~meaiciue,  and  here  we  are.  Is  it  worth  while  to  undergo  this 
death  and  resurrection  again  ?  We  shall  never  do  it  if  we  lay  fast  hold  on  the 
facts  of  the  universe.  There  may  be  a  time  come  when  nations  will  be  no  more, 
when  the  brotherhood  of  man  may  be  established,  when  communication  ma>'  be 
.so  rapid,  when  we  .shall  be  so  equally  advanced  in  civilization,  that  nobody  will 
care  where  he  lives  or  is  buried;  when  distance  shall  break  no  ties,  and  when  the 
universal  language  is  spoken  by  everybody  without  accent ;  in  that  time  we  may 
lose  nationality  and  become  citizens  of  the  world.  Then  free  trade  may  reign. 
But  such  a  time  will  not  happen  within  the  hundred  years  which  centre  in  that 
week  when  two  English  speaking  nations  were  ready  to  clutch  each  other  by  the 
throat  about  a  boundary  thousands  of  miles  away,  and  the  German  emperor  was 
ready  to  fight  the  kingdom  of  his  grandmother  about  some  people  in  Africa  whose 
ancestors  left  the  fatherland  so  long  ago  that  history  is  not  quite  sure  that  thcN- 
did  leave  it.  Nationality  is  a  fact,  brotherhood  is  a  hope.  Perhaps  if  we  live  up 
to  our  fact  that  may  be  the  best  way  to  arrive  at  our  hope. 


'^^T-z^ 


^:::cV /P^  /W^^<_^ 


PART  I. 
OUTLINE  OF  COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


CHAPTER  I. 


General  Division  of  Trade,  Commerce  and  Industries. 

It  is  by  the  production,  distribution  and  consumption  of  commodities 
that  the  various  wants  of  man  are  supplied.  From  increased  consumption 
arises  a  demand  for  production.  In  the  earlier  stages  of  man's  existence 
he  supplied  his  own  wants  by  his  products,  but  to-day  people  are  enabled 
to  consume  onl}'  after  they  have  earned  money  with  which  to  purchase. 
Man  must  either  apply  himself  directly  to  the  soil,  and  thus  supply  his 
own  wants,  or  he  must  trade  his  labor  and  efforts  for  that  commodity 
called  money,  which  can  be  exchanged  for  what  he  desires.  However 
much  attention  may  be  given  to  other  branches  of  the  subject,  it  must  be 
conceded  that,  under  our  present  social  conditions,  the  question  of  finding 
employment  for  the  people,  and  providing  them  with  the  means  by  which 
'  they  may  exchange  their  labor,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  commodities, 
deserves  the  highest  consideration,  and  lies  at  the  very  base  of  the  science 
of  economics.  The  true  economics  must  begin  here.  This  is  the  basis 
of  production,  aswell  asof  consumption.  The  distribution  of  products  is 
a  matter  of  convenience,  and  important  only  as  it  aids  these  two  neces- 
sary elements.  The  three  important  branches  of  production  upon  which 
the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  nations  chiefly  depend  are  agriculture, 
manufacturing  and  mining.  A  country  ble.ssed  with  resources  by  which 
these  three  branches  of  industry  can  be  carried  on,  is  enabled  to  find 
employment  for  the  largest  number  of  people,  under  the  most  perfect  divi- 
sion of  labor,  and  develop  to  the  highest  degree  the  various  capabilities 
and  aptitudes  of  its  people.  A  nation  posse,s.sed  of  a  variety  of  soil  and 
climate  suited  to  the  growth  of  all  of  the  cereals,  fruits  and  vegetables  of 
temperate  and  semi-tropical  regions  can  reach  the  highest  agricultural 
development.  A  nation  having  gold,  silver,  copper,  nickel,  lead,  iron 
and  coal  in  abundance  is  possessed  of  inestimable  mineral  resources.  With 
all  of  these  at  its  command,  with  a  soil  and  climate  suitable  to  the  growth 
of  cotton,  flax,  hemp,  jute  and  other  vegetable  fibres,  and  with  pa.stures 
for  sheep,  it  possesses  in  the  highest  degree,  the  natural  resources  and 
facilities  for  acquiring  every  blessing,  comfort  and  luxury  attainable.  An 
enterprising  and  industrious  population,  inhabiting  such  a  country-,  with 
(1) 


C0M3IEnCIAL  HISTOEY  TO  1650. 

such  resources,  can  practically  live  within  itself,  and  reach  the  highest 
state  of  prosperity  and  civilization,  without  giving  any  special  attention 
to  foreign  commerce.  Their  surplus  products  can  readily  be  exchanged 
for  those  commodities  of  foreign  countries  which  they  are  unable  to  pro- 
duce, and  as  they  grow  in  wealth,  as  their  domestic  industries  increase, 
as  the  tastes  and  wants  of  the  people  expand,  suflBcient  legitimate  for- 
eign trade  will  naturally  arise  to  give  them  importance  in  this  class  of 
commerce.  The  prosperity  of  a  people  so  situated  is  measured  by  that 
vast  volume  of  unregistered  inland  exchanges  which  is  carried  on  within 
its  own  borders,  and  not  by  the  comparatively  .small  amount  of  external 
trade  with  other  portions  of  the  world,  arising  from  a  variation  of  the 
products  of  soil  and  climate. 

A  clear  understanding  of  the  application  of  economic  principles  can- 
not be  reached  without  a  study  of  geographical  situation,  natural  resources 
and  those  conditions  under  which  all  industrial  pursuits  must  be  carried 
on  by  the  people  of  different  nations.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world 
possessed  of  all  elements  by  which  everything  can  be  produced  within  its 
own  borders.  It  is  well  recognized  that  one  country  must  confine  itself 
to  those  pursuits  to  which,  by  soil,  climate,  natural  resources  and  the 
special  aptitude  and  capabilities  of  its  people,  it  is  suited,  and  at  the  same 
time,  leave  to  other  portions  of  the  world  the  production  of  those  com- 
modities which  nature  has  ordained  for  them.  Tea,  coffee,  spices,  cotton, 
tropical  fruits  grow  luxuriantly  in  certain  localities,  and  in  no  others; 
while  grains,  vegetables  and  coarser  products  grow  in  all  parts  of  the 
world.  No  one  attempts  to  interfere  with  the  laws  of  nature,  which  have 
selected  certain  plants  and  fruits  to  grow  in  certain  localities.  The  natural 
products  of  a  country  should  not  be  confounded  with  the  capabilities  of 
man  in  expending  his  energies  upon  raw  materials,  such  as  cotton,  flax, 
silk,  wool  and  the  metals,  or  the  use  he  makes  of  fuel  and  water  power,  in 
con\-erting  them  into  clothing  and  implements.  The  growth  of  those  food 
products  and  raw  materials  which  flourish  luxuriantly  in  tropical  regions, 
with  little  effort  on  the  part  of  man,  have  no  relation  to  the  production 
of  manufactured  articles  by  the  application  of  labor  and  skill  to  raw 
materials.  Because  nature  has  ordained  that  coffee,  tea  and  raw  silk  shall 
be  produced  only  in  certain  .spots  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  the  raw  silk  should  be  woven  into  cloth  in  France,  instead  of  in 
the  United  States,  simply  because  labor  is  sixty  per  cent  cheaper  in  Lyons 
than  in  Paterson,  N.  J.  At  the  outset  the  reader  should  mark  the  dis- 
tinction between  natural  products  of  soil  and  climate  and  the  products  of 
industry  and  the  handicraft  of  man. 

Moreover  the  limitations  imposed  by  external  nature  upon  production 
are  not  so  great  as  might  at  first  thoughts  appear.  Among  agricultural 
products,  the  cereals  and  vegetables  which  contribute  so  largelj-  to  the 
support  and  sustenance  of  man,  grow  in  abundance  in  almost  every  country 


TRADE,   COM.UERCE  AXD  INDUSTRIES. 


and  clime  between  the  frigid  zones.  There  are  only  a  few  localities 
adapted  by  nature  to  the  growth  of  special  products,  such  as  tea,  coffee, 
tropical  fruits,  etc.  Among  minerals,  iron,  copper,  lead,  etc.,  are  found 
on  every  continent  and  in  every  country.  Coal  beds  for  fuel  are  equally 
widely  distributed.  Manufacturing  and  mining,  as  industrial  pursuits, 
do  not  depend  upon  natural  facilities  of  soil  and  climate,  but  upon  the 
application  of  capital  and  labor,  excepting  that  on  account  of  extreme  heat 
certain  tropical  regions  are  unsuited  to  manufacturing,  and  large  indus- 
trial enterprises  which  require  excessive  physical  exertion. 

Trade  and  commerce  may  be  divided  into  two  general  branches,  as 
follows: 

1.  Domestic  Trade,  which  consists  of  those  exchanges  of  commod- 
ities produced  at  home,  which  are  carried  on  between  the  people  of  the 
same  nation. 

2.  Foreign  Trade,  or  that  frade  which  is  carried  on  between  the  peo- 
ple of  different  countries. 

Foreign  trade  is  divided  into  three  main  branches,  as  follows: 

1.  Round  About  Trade,  in  which  articles  are  bought  in  one  foreign 
country  and  sold  in  another  foreign  country.  This  class  of  trade  is  at 
present  largely  engaged  in  by  citizens  of  England,  who,  for  instance,  buy 
coffee  in  Brazil,  and  sell  it  in  the  United  States. 

2.  The  Exchange  of  Native  for  Foreign  Produce,  that  branch  of  trade 
in  which  domestic  products  are  exchanged  for  foreign  articles,  the  like  of 
which  cannot  be  produced  at  home,  for  instance,  the  exchange,  by  the 
people  of  England,  of  manufactured  articles,  for  tea,  coffee,  spices,  raw 
materials,  etc. 

3.  The  Exchange  of  the  Native  Produce  of  a  Country  for  Articles 
the  Like  of  Which  Might  be  Produced  at  Home,  for  instance,  the 
exchange  by  the  United  States,  of  agricultural  products  for  manufactured 
articles,  or  the  exchange,  by  England,  of  manufactured  articles  for  agri- 
cultural products,  or  the  exchange,  by  England,  of  certain  manufactured 
articles  for  other  manufactured  articles,  the  like  of  which  can  be  produced 
in  the  United  Kingdom. 

Tke  last-named  class  of  foreign  trade  is  engaged  in  only  when  one 
country  possesses  so7ne  acquired  adva?itages  in  productioji  over  a  competing 
country,  such  as  skill,  capital,  machinery  or  cheap  labor.  It  is  with  respect 
to  this  class  of  trade,  that  the  controversy  has  arisen  beiwee?i  the  advo- 
cates of  protection  to  home  ittdustries  and  those  favoring  free  trade. 

The  advocates  of  protection  propose  to  develop  fully  the  agricultural 
and  mineral  resources  of  their  own  country ;  to  encourage  the  investment 
of  capital  in  manufacturing,  and  so  far  as  possible  in  the  production  of 
everything  necessary,  desirable  or  useful  to  its  inhabitants.  They 
favor  the  several  branches  of  foreign  trade,  but  do  not  believe  that 
domestic  industries  should  be  sacrificed  or  curtailed  to  make  room  for 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  mm. 


Relative 

importance 

of  domestic 

production 

and/oreign 

trade. 


manufactured  articles  from  other  countries,  when  these  articles  can  be 
produced  at  home  through  protection  to  native  industries. 

Those  advocating  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  attach  great  importance 
to  foreign  trade,  and  favor  its  widest  possible  extension  under  all  condi- 
tions, even  though  the  investment  of  capital  and  labor  in  that  direction 
results  in  an  injury  to  native  industries,  or  in  their  total  destruction. 

The  importance  attached  to  these  several  branches  of  industrial  pur- 
suits forms  one  of  the  chief  subjects  of  controversy  between  the  two  great 
.schools  of  economics.  Adam  Smith  in  his  "Wealth  of  Nations,"  after  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  history  of  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the 
world,  announced  a  principle,  which  was  not  only  proven  b)'  past  experi- 
ence, but  which  has  been  confirmed  by  subsequent  events,  and  is  regarded 
as  of  great  importance  by  protectionists.  He  recognized  and  stated  the 
importance  of  domestic  production  over  foreign  trade,  in  the  following 
language : 

All  wholesale  trade,  all  buying  in  order  to  sell  again  bj-  wholesale,  may  be 
reduced  to  three  different  sorts,  the  home  trade,  the  foreigu  trade  of  consumption  and 
the  carrying  trade.  The  home  trade  is  employed  in  purchasing  in  one  part  of  the 
same  country,  and  selling  in  another,  the  produce  of  the  industry  of  that  country.  It 
comprehends  both  the  inland  and  coasting  trade.  The  foreign  trade  of  consumption 
is  employed  in  purchasing  foreign  goods  for  home  consumption.  The  carrying  trade 
is  emplo}'ed  in  transacting  the  commerce  of  foreign  countries,  or  in  carrying  the 
surplus  produce  of  one  to  another.' 

After  agriculture,  the  capital  employed  in  manufacturing  puts  into  motion  the 
greatest  quantity  of  prodttctive  labor,  and  adds  the  greatest  value  to  the  annual  pro- 
duce. That  which  is  employed  in  the  trade  of  exportation  has  the  least  effect  of  any 
of  the  three? 

The  capital  therefore  employed  in  the  home  trade  of  any  country  will  generally 
give  encouragement  and  support  to  a  greater  quantity  of  productive  labor  in  that 
country,  and  increase  the  value  of  its  annual  produce  more  than  an  equal  capital 
employed  in  the  foreign  trade  of  consumption;  and  the  capital  employed  in  this  latter 
trade  has  in  both  these  respects  a  still  greater  advantage  over  an  equal  capital 
employed  in  the  carrying  trade.  .  .  .  The  riches,  and  .<:o  far  as  power  depends  upon 
riches,  the  power  of  every  country  must  ahvays  be  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  its 
annual  produce,  the  fund  frofli  which  all  ta.ves  must  ultimately  be  paid,  but  the  great 
object  of  the  political  economy  of  every  country,  is  to  increase  the  riches  and  power  of 
the  country.' 

There  is  a  constant  effort  emanating  from  certain  quarters  to  mag- 
nify the  importance  of  foreign  trade,  and  especially  of  that  part  known 
as  the  carrying  trade,  although  Adam  Smith  regards  it  as  the  least  profit- 
able of  all.  However  prosperous  and  enterprising  those  nations  or  cities 
may  have  been,  which  in  times  past  excelled  in  foreign  commerce,  without 
taking  into  consideration  the  conditions  which  induced  it,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances which  turned  their  attention  to  this  class  of  trade,  we  can  form 
no  estimate  of  the  application  of  .such  policy  to  other  countries.  To  a 
nation  like  the  United  States,  suited  to  agriculture,  manufacturing  and 

'  Wealth  of  Nations,  page  294.       ^  Id.  iqi.       '  Id.  297. 


TRADE,   COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRIES. 


mining,  the  foreign  carrying  trade  is  the  least  profitable  of  all,  because 
it  gives  employment  to  the  smallest  number  of  laborers,  and  investment 
to  the  least  capital.  It  is  directly  beneficial,  only  to  the  large  capitalists 
who  carry  it  on.  Their  ships  are  built,  other  things  being  equal,  in  navy- 
yards  and  countries,  where  they  can  be  constructed  at  the  least  possible 
cost.  They  are  provisioned  in  ports  where  supplies  are  cheapest,  and 
manned  with  sailors  picked  up  and  employed  from  different  countries.  The 
.ship-owner  is  interested  in  the  welfare  of  one  country  as  muth  as  another. 
He  knows  no  flag,  no  nationality,  and  has  no  patriotism.  He  is  really 
a  citizen  of  no  country.  He  makes  his  profits  out  of  freight  gathered  from 
all  regions,  and. invests  his  surplus  earnings  in  places  where  he  can  obtain 
the  highest  rate  of  interest.  He  would  fly  no  flag  at  his  masthead  were 
it  not  required  by  international  law.  The  very  circumstances  under 
which  it  is  carried  on  confirms  the  statement  of  Adam  Smith,  which  more 
strongly  conveys  the  truth  to-day  than  ever  before,  that  no  nation  can 
afford  to  sacrifice  home  industries  in  order  to  build  up  this  Round  About 
Trade.  If,  however,  the  necessity  of  the  situation  or  an  overflowing- 
population  opens  this  field  of  enterprise  as  the  readiest  and  best  means  of 
giving  employment  to  the  labor  and  capital  of  a  country,  it  then,  of 
course,  becomes  of  great  importance.  In  any  event  the  benefits  depend 
upon  the  extent  to  which  the  vessels  are  owned  and  manned  by  its  own 
citizens,  the  ships  built  and  repaired  in  native  shipyards,  and  the  busi- 
ness carried  on  in  such  a  way  as  to  increase  the  national  wealth.  The 
truth  and  importance  of  these  general  principles  will  appear  more  clearly 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  commercial  development  of  nations  as 
shown  in  their  history. 

The  exchange  of  domestic  commodities  for  the  natural  products  of 
other  countries,  the  like  of  which  cannot  be  produced  at  home,  depends 
upon  the  state  of  civilization,  the  geographical  situation,  and  the  resources 
of  a  country,  for  the  extent  to  which  it  is  carried  on.  For  in.stance,  the 
United  States  must  always  buy  its  tea,  coffee,  spices,  rubber,  dye  stuffs 
and  certain  tropical  fruits  in  foreign  countries.  It  is  highly  profitable 
and  necessary  that  the  United  States  should  engage  in  this  trade  and 
exchange  its  domestic  productions  for  such  articles  of  foreign  growth. 
England  is  in  the  same  situation,  and  necessarily  must  depend  on  the 
native  production  of  other  countries,  to  a  larger  degree  than  the  United 
States.  In  the  very  nature  of  things  this  class  of  foreign  trade  must  be 
carried  on  to  the  extent  of  the  demands  of  the  people,  and  is  highly  bene 
ficial  to  the  countries  so  dealing  with  each  other.  As  a  country  increases 
its  domestic  production  and  home  trade,  as  its  people  become  more  pros 
perous  and  independent,  as  their  tastes  and  desires  expand,  the  market 
among  them  for  these  commodities  steadily  increases  their  foreign  trade, 
and  the  sale  of  their  surplus  domestic  productions  to  purchase  the  neces- 
saries and  luxuries  produced  in  foreign  countries  constantly  grows.    The 


C03I3IERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 

necessaries  and  luxuries  of  foreign  countries  must  be  obtained,  either  by 
buying  them  outright  with  coin,  or  by  an  exchange  of  surplus  domestic 
products.  So  the  basis  of  this  class  of  foreign  trade  is  domestic  pro- 
duction. Without  domestic  production  a  country  is  unable  to  buy  such 
foreign  articles.  This  class  of  trade  is  legitimate,  because  it  is  necessarj% 
arising  from  an  ordinance  in  nature  which  has  adapted  certain  regions  to 
the  exclusive  growth  of  certain  articles.  In  order  fully  to  supply  the 
wants  of  man,  such  exchanges  are  made  necessary;  but  this  class  of  trade, 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  arises  wholly  from  what  is  known  as  the 
products  of  nature,  proceeding  from  conditions  existing  in  the  nature  of 
soil  and  climate,  and  not  so  much  from  the  industry  or  capabilities  of  man. 
For  instance,  it  is  in  the  order  of  nature  that  the  people  of  the  United 
States  should  receive  their  coffee  and  tea  from  remote  regions,  while  there 
is  no  reason  existing  in  nature  why  the  people  of  the  United  States  should 
buy  their  cotton,  woolen  goods  and  other  manufactured  articles  from 
England  and  the  Continent,  when  the  natural  facilities  for  their  production 
exist  in  the  United  States,  and  an  abundance  of  skillful  and  industrious 
people,  who  are  as  well  adapted  to  the  art  of  producing  them,  as  the 
inhabitants  of  any  other  portion  of  the  globe. 

Home  exchanges  consist  in  that  vast  amount  of  inland  and  coasting 
trade  which  is  carried  on  by  a  people  in  the  exchange  of  their  own  domes- 
tic productions  among  themselves.  Foreign  exchanges,  as  we  have 
shown,  should  be  confined  as  nearly  as  possible  to  obtaining  from  foreign 
countries  the  natural  products  of  soil  and  climate,  to  the  production  of 
which  they  are  specially  adapted,  and  should  be  limited  to  obtaining  as 
small  an  amount  as  po.ssible  of  wares  which  are  produced  by  the  labor  of 
artisans,  that  domestic  productions  may  be  more  fully  developed.  Home 
trade  is  carried  on  by  denizens.  In  the  United  States  it  is  carried  on  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  Factories  are  built  out  of  materials  pro- 
duced by  the  labor  of  our  country.  Our  artisans  and  laborers  have  their 
homes  within  the  country.  The  capital  employed,  and  thus  set  in  motion, 
is  distributed  to  all  channels  of  trade,  constantly  stimulating,  sustaining 
and  strengthening  all  branches  of  industrial  life,  and  forming  the  verj- 
basis  of  industrial  activity  and  that  general  prosperity  which  makes  a 
country  most  desirable  to  live  in.  The  larger  this  class  of  trade,  the  more 
schools,  churches,  libraries,  charitable  institutions,  and  the  larger  number 
of  homes  and  comfortable  men,  women  and  children.  To  destroy  this 
class  of  trade,  is  like  taking  the  nerves  out  of  the  human  body.  It  is  by 
keeping  in  view  this  distinction  between  domestic  and  foreign  trade, 
that  we  are  enabled  to  grasp  those  economic  principles  which  promote 
the  prosperity  of  a  nation.  It  is  by  keeping  well  in  mind  the  distinction 
between  domestic  trade  and  foreign  trade,  that  we  are  enabled  to 
determine  the  importance  and  limits  of  domestic  production,  as  well  as 
readily  to  understand  the  true  province  and  scope  of  foreign  exchanges. 


TRADE,   C0M3IERCE  AND  INDUSTRIES. 

No  prominent  and  permanent  nation  has  yet  neglected  the  develop- 
ment of  its  resources  and  the  cultivation,  to  the  highest  degree  possible, 
of  its  own  natural  products,  and  the  fullest  employment  of  its  labor,  with- 
out suffering  a  severe  penalty.  The  people  of  no  nation  in  the  history  of 
the  world  has  ever  prospered  under  a  policy  which  sacrificed  its  home 
industries  to  build  up  and  develop  the  resources  and  give  employment 
to  the  labor  of  foreign  states.  The  controversy  upon  these  questions  has 
arisen  out  of  the  distinctions  stated.  Those  advocating  the  doctrine  of 
free  trade  teach  that  the  prosperity  of  nations,  regardless  of  their  situa- 
tion or  economic  conditions,  can  most  surely  be  promoted  through  foreign 
exchanges;  while  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  protection  believe  that 
countries  with  a  great  diversity  of  natural  resources  can  become  more 
prosperous,  its  people  reach  the  highest  social  condition,  greatest  inde- 
pendence and  prosperity,  by  the  encouragement  and  development  of  native 
resources;  holding  also,  that  foreign  exchanges  should  be  treated  only  as 
a  part  of  an  industrial  system,  having  for  its  basis  the  employment  of  the 
labor  and  capital  of  a  country  in  domestic  production  and  exchanges. 


CHAPTER  II. 

COMMERCK    OF   THE    NATIONS    OF    ANTIQUITY. 

A  brief  sketch  of  the  general  features  of  the  external  trade  carried 
on  by  the  nations  of  antiquity  prior  to  the  twelfth  century,  becomes  of 
importance,  as  showing  the  contrast  between  modern  economic  conditions 
and  those  which  then  prevailed  and  as  revealing  the  causes  that  have 
determined  the  commercial  destiny  of  these  nations.  It  has  not  been  until 
recent  centuries  that  the  commercial  policy  of  governments  has  assumed 
a  definite  course  and  been  applied  to  circumstances  at  all  comparable  to 
present  conditions.  Prior  to  the  eighteenth  centurj'  ocean  voyages  were 
most  hazardous  and  expensive.  The  accounts  given  of  the  voyages  made 
by  the  Dutch  and  English  to  India,  around  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and 
the  proportion  of  vessels  and  cargoes  lost  each  year  by  storms  and  perils 
of  the  sea,  may  be  considered  as  items  of  great  importance.  The  inland 
traffic  was  carried  on  in  ancient  times,  by  conveying  goods  on  the  backs 
of  camels,  over  deserts,  from  country-  to  country,  and  by  caravans,  bring- 
ing the  goods  from  inland  to  the  seaport  for  shipment. 

During  the  Middle  Ages  a  portion  of  the  trade  between  Western 
Europe  and  Asia  was  carried  on  by  caravans,  extending  their  route  from 
Constantinople  west,  and  from  Venice  into  the  heart  of  Western  Europe. 
Even  those  goods  which  were  carried  by  ship  from  distant  countries  were 
shipped  into  the  interior  at  a  great  expense.  The  question  of  competi- 
tion, as  affected  by  this  element,  did  not  enter  into  the  consideration  of 
economic  policies  until  recent  years.  It  has  now  become  of  more  impor- 
tance, as  railroads,  steamships  and  canals  have  reduced  freight  to  a  mini- 
mum and  brought  all  countries  within  trading  distance  of  each  other. 

It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  masses  of  people  were  in  a 
condition  of  slavery  or  serfdom,  and  that  their  wants  were  supplied  as 
dictated  by  their  masters.  The  idea  of  forming  an  industrial  polic}-  for 
the  elevation  of  the  masses  was  not  suggested  until  recent  centuries. 
The  articles  which  entered  into  foreign  trade  were  few  in  number,  and  of 
uch  character  that  the  foreign  trade  of  all  countries  was  necessarily  small, 
when  compared  with  domestic  production.  From  the  earliest  times  to  the 
close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  each  locality  supplied  it.self  with  the  food  pro- 
ducts obtained  by  cultivation  of  its  own  soil,  and  purchased  only  those 
things  not  produced  at  home,  without  thought  of  enlarging  its  industries. 
The  foreign  carrying  trade  was  confined  largely  to  luxuries  and  those 
articles  indulged  in  only  by  the  nobility  and  aristocrats.  The  lack  of 
onnnunication  and  intercour.se  between  the  people  of  different  countries, 
(8) 


NATIONS  OF  ANTIQUITY. 


even  those  adjoining,  tended  also  to  prevent  a  distribution  of  knowledge  by 
which  the  people  of  one  country  might  become  familiar  with  the  industrial 
life  and  the  arts  and  mysteries  by  which  articles  were  produced  in  others. 
The  spirit  of  progress  was  so  lacking,  that  the  ideas  of  one  country 
were  seldom  imitated  by  a  neighbor;  hence,  the  whole  world  for  centuries 
made  no  material  advancement.  From  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  close 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  for  perhaps  2500  years,  but  few  articles  were  added 
to  the  foreign  trade  of  the  world. 

The  earliest  records  of  foreign  trade  in  existence  were  found  by  Dr. 
Brugsch,  sculptured  on  rocks  in  Egypt.  They  indicated  that  in  2500  B.  C. 
the  Egyptians  sent  trading  expeditions  to  the  countries  bordering  on 
the  Eastern  coast  of  Africa,  south  of  the  Red  Sea.  Numerous  Bible 
accounts  are  given  of  the  caravans  which  carried  on  trade  between  Egypt 
and  the  Holy  Land.  The  chief  trading  peoples  of  that  region,  however, 
were  the  Edomites  and  Midianites,  who  from  their  geographical  situation, 
from  their  wandering  disposition,  and  from  their  possession  of  the  camel 
as  a  beast  of  burden  became  the  natural  carriers  of  the  fertile  countries 
that  surrounded  them.  To  this  they  were  impelled  by  the  barren  char- 
acter of  their  own  land.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Egyptians,  inhabiting 
the  fertile  valley  of  the  Nile,  gave  but  slight  attention  to  foreign  trade, 
confining  themselves  to  the  exchange  of  domestic  products  up  and  down 
the  river.  "The  importation  of  merchandise  from  foreign  countries  was 
a  political  rather  than  a  commercial  affair.  Such  foreign  wares  as  entered 
the  country  came  as  a  tribute,  as  the  spoils  of  wars  or  as  memorials  of 
peaceful  embassies. ' ' ' 

The  ancient  kingdom  of  Babylonia  was  noted  for  its  manufactures, 
especially  for  its  weaving  of  cloth  and  its  pottery.  Its  foreign  trade  was 
extensive,  and  Babylonian  cloth,  pottery  and  ointments  were  exchanged 
for  the  wine  and  oil  of  Syria,  for  the  spices  of  Yemen,  and  for  the  wine 
and  wood  of  the  Armenians.  Ancient  India  too  was  a  commercial  coun- 
try. While  its  domestic  trade  was  especially  active,  there  is  evidence 
also  that  its  products  were  distributed  extensively  throughout  the  North 
and  West. 

Another  people  engaged  like  the  Arabs  chiefly  in  the  carrying  trade 
was  the  Phoenicians.  They  were  the  first  great  maritime  power  of  the 
world,  and  in  fact  the  only  people  of  antiquity  who  were  exclusively  a  sea- 
faring people.  The  causes  which  turned  their  energies  in  this  direction 
are  important  from  the  light  they  throw  on  the  circumstances  that  have 
impelled  nations  to  confine  themselves  exclusively  to  this  branch  of  trade. 
Occupyitig  a  strip  of  barren  and  sterile  territory,  only  eight  or  ten  miles 
wide,  lying  between  the  mountains  of  Judaea  and  the  coast  of  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea;  deprived  by  nature  of  an  opportunity  of  cultivating  the 
soil ;  unable  to  bring  the  materials  for  manufacture  and  food  supplies  to 

1  E.  J.  Simcox,  Primitive  Civilization,  Vol.  I. 


Baiylc 
zndli 


C03IMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


their  cities,  excepting  over  mountains  or  bj^  the  sea,  they  chose  the  latter 
course.  This  they  could  easily  do,  for  on  Mount  Libanus,  within  a  few 
miles  of  the  coast,  an  abundance  of  timber  suitable  for  ship  building  could 
be  obtained.  The  few  inhabitants  occupying  this  region  first  put  to  sea 
as  pirates,  robbing  the  cities  and  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean.  As  they 
carried  their  booty  and  treasure  home,  their  wealth  increased,  they  became 
more  enterprising  and  skillful  in  managing  their  .ships,  and  more  venture- 
some in  their  voyages  and  undertakings.  After  centuries  of  piratical 
raids  they  gradually  drifted  into  legitimate  trade  and  commerce,  and 
became  the  sole  possessors  of  the  carrj'ing  trade  along  the  coast  of  the 
Mediterranean,  between  what  were  then  the  richest  and  most  populous 
countries  of  the  ancient  world.  The}'  practiced  with  great  proficiency  the 
art  of  making  glass;  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  dye  stuffs,  and  other 
articles  of  "commerce ;  their  merchants  distributed  the  spices,  perfumes, 
precious  stones,  ivories  and  other  luxuries  of  India  and  Egypt  among 
the  cities  of  Greece  and  along  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean.  Their 
power  as  a  nation  increased  and  they  planted  colonies  in  Carthage,  along 
the  coast  of  Africa,  on  the  islands  of  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  along  the 
Southern  coast  of  Spain.  They  are  said  to  have  passed  the  Strait  of 
Gibraltar,  and  worked  the  tin  and  lead  mines  of  the  island  of  Britain. 
Supplied  with  silver  from  the  mines  of  Spain,  reaping  large  profits  from 
this  carrying  trade  of  which  they  held  a  monopolj',  their  merchants 
became  rich,  and  the  cities  of  Sidon  and  Tyre  became  centres  of  wealth 
and  marts  of  great  commercial  importance.  From  the  twelfth  to 
the  seventh  century  B.  C.  was  the  period  of  their  commercial  greatness. 
Their  decline  dates  from  the  invasion  of  Syria  by  Alexander  the  Great. 
The  country  finally  became  a  Roman  province;  their  commerce  and  trade 
disappeared;  their  wealth  faded  away,  and  all  that  is  now  left  to  point 
to  their  greatness  is  the  ruins  of  their  cities. 

Though  not  such  skillful  mariners  as  the  Phcenicians,  the  Greeks 
engaged  extensively  in  commerce.  Athens  affords  a  good  illustration  of 
activity  in  that  branch  of  foreign  trade  which  exchanges  domestic  pro- 
ducts for  commodities  which  the  natural  defects  of  the  home  countrj-  pre- 
vent it  from  producing  within  its  own  limits,  for  the  soil  of  Attica  being 
then  as  now  ill-suited  for  agriculture,  the  grain  consumed  in  the  city  of 
Athens  was  obtained  for  the  most  part  from  the  great  grain-producing 
regions  bordering  on  the  Black  Sea.  Corinth  was  a  more  important  com- 
mercial centre  even  than  Athens.  From  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century 
B.  C.  the  maritime  importance  of  the  Greeks  was  apparent  and  before  a 
century  had  passed  they  had  shown  their  energy  and  resource  by  the 
invention  of  triremes.  The  necessity  of  having  articles  to  exchange  for 
the  food  products  of  other  regions  stimulated  manufactures,  and  Greek 
pottery,  weapons  and  implements  were  extensively  bartered  on  the  Medi- 
terranean coast.     Numerous  and  important  colonies  were  established  on 


NATIONS  OF  ANTIQUITY. 


the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean  and  as  far  west  as  the  mouth  of  the 
Rhone  in  France. 

Carthage,  inheriting  the  maritime  skill  of  her  Phoenician  fomiders, 
became  for  a  time  the  chief  naval  power  of  the  Mediterranean  and  enjoj'ed 
through  her  ships  that  dominion  on  the  sea  which  Rome  through  her 
legions  was  winning  for  herself  on  land.  Her  colonies  settled  the  port  of 
Cadiz.  She  founded  Carthagena  and  Barcelona,  also  on  the  Spanish  coast, 
and  had  trading  stations  on  the  shores  of  Gaul.  Primarily  a  commercial 
nation,  she  left  her  proper  sphere  .of  action  when  she  entered  upon  her 
long  and  destructive  wars  with  Rome,  and  though  she  held  her  own  for  a 
time,  ultimately  she  was  forced  to  succumb.  Her  power  was  destroyed 
and  within  the  ruined  walls  of  her  once  populous  capital  only  a  few 
thousand  inhabitants  remained  to  bear  witness  to  her  former  greatness. 
There  are  few  parallels  in  history  to  such  a  sudden  and  complete  extinc- 
tion of  a  powerful  empire.  The  chief  cause  of  this  was  the  important 
fact  that  the  Carthaginians,  like  the  Phoenicians,  applied  themselves 
exclusively  to  the  carrying  trade  and  when  war  destroyed  this  they  had 
nothing  to  fall  back  upon,  as  the  narrow  strip  of  territory  on  the  coast  of 
Africa  surrounded  by  a  desert  did  not  possess  sufficient  natural  resources 
to  sustain  a  great  population. 

The  Romans  cannot  be  ranked  among  the  commercial  nations.  Still,  they 
should  be  mentioned  in  a  history  of  commerce  because  of  the  immense  extent  of 
their  empire,  which  created  a  vast  market,  and  because  of  their  grand  system  of 
communication,  which,  although  established  for  military  and  administrative  pur- 
poses, served  also  for  the  transport  of  merchandise.  Under  the  empire,  Rome  and 
Italy,  whose  agriculture  was  ruined,  could  not  subsist  but  for  the  importations  from 
the  provinces,  especially  of  their  grain.  After  the  devastations  of  war  and  the 
rapine  of  proconsuls,  labor  and  commerce,  protected  by  a  regular  administration, 
served  again  to  restore  the  wealth  of  the  civilized  countries  of  the  East,  at  the  same 
time  that,  under  the  domination  of  Rome,  they  gave  life  to  the  hitherto  barbarous 
nations  of  the  West.  Alexandria  was  one  of  the  richest  commercial  cities  of  this 
period,  the  great  storehouse  of  the  commerce  of  the  Romans.  But,  by  the  con- 
tinuous weakening  of  the  empire,  commerce  languished  and  perished  gradually, 
until  the  invasion  of  the  northern  tribes  finally  destroyed  it' 

Rome,  placed  like  a  mightier  Mexico  in  the  centre  of  her  mighty  lake,  was 
furnished  with  every  luxury  and  with  many  of  her  chief  necessaries  from  beyond 
the  waters;  and  cities  on  every  coast,  nearly  similar  in  latitude  and  climate,  vied 
in  intense  rivalry  with  each  other  in  ministering  to  her  appetite.  First  in  the 
ranks  of  commerce  was  the  traffic  in  corn,  which  was  conducted  by  large  fleets  of 
galleys,  sailing  from  certain  havens  once  a  year  at  stated  periods,  and  pouring  their 
stores  into  her  granaries  in  their  appointed  order.  Gaul  and  Spain,  Sardinia  and 
Sicily,  Africa  and  Egypt  were  all  wheat-growing  countries,  and  all  contributed  of 
their  produce,  partly  as  a  tax,  partly  as  an  article  of  commerce,  to  the  sustentation 
of  Rome  and  Italy. 

The  vessels  engaged  in  this  trade,  however  numerous,  were  after  all  of  small 
liurden.  The  corn  fleets  did  not  indeed  form  the  chief  maritime  venture  of  the 
Alexandrians.     The   products  of   India   which  had  formerly  reached    Egypt   from 

'  CyctopiEdia  of  Political  Science,  Political  Economy  and  United  States  History,  Vol.  I.,  p.  514. 


COMMERCIAL  HISTOEl'  TO  JilSO. 


Arabia  and  were  supposed  indeed  in  Europe  to  have  come  only  from  the  shores  of 
the  Erythraean  Sea,  were  now  conveyed  direct  to  Cleopatris  or  Berenice  from  the 
mouths  of  Indus  and  the  coast  of  Malabar,  and  employed  an  increasing  number  of 
vessels,  which  took  advantage  of  the  periodical  trade-winds  both  in  going  and 
returning.  The  articles  of  which  they  went  in  quest  were  for  the  most  part  objects 
of  luxury ;  such  as  ivory  and  tortoise-shell,  fabrics  of  cotton  and  silk,  both  then 
rare  and  costly,  pearls  and  diamonds,  and  more  especially  gums  and  spices.  The 
consumption  of  these  latter  substances  in  dress,  in  cookery,  in  the  service  of  the 
temple,  and  above  all  at  funerals,  advanced  with  the  progress  of  wealth  and  refine- 
ment. The  consignments  which  reached  Alexandria  from  the  East  were  directed  to 
every  port  on  the  Mediterranean ;  but  there  was  no  correspouding  demand  for  the 
produce  of  the  West  in  India,  and  these  precious  freights  were  for  the  most  part 
exchanged  for  gold  and  silver,  of  which  the  drain  from  Europe  to  Asia  was  unin- 
terrupted. The  amount  of  precious  metals  thus  abstracted  from  the  currency  or 
bullion  of  the  empire,  was  estimated  at  loo,  ooo,  ooo sesterces  or  about  800,  ooo  pounds 
sterling  yearly.  The  reed  called  papyrus,  the  growth  of  which  seems  to  have  been 
almost  confined  to  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  was  in  general  use  as  the  cheapest  and 
most  convenient  writing  material,  and  the  consumption  of  it  throughout  the 
world,  though  it  never  entirely  superseded  the  use  of  parchment  and  waxen  tablets, 
nuist  have  been  immense.  It  was  converted  into  paper  in  Egypt,  and  thence 
exported  in  its  manufactured  state;  but  this  practice  was  not  universal,  for  we  read 
of  a  house  at  Rome,  which  improved  on  the  native  process,  and  produced  what 
Pliny  calls  an  imperial  or  noble,  out  of  a  mere  plebeian  texture.  With  respect  to 
other  articles  of  general  use  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  most  important,  such  as 
corn,  wine,  oil  and  wool,  were  the  common  produce  of  all  the  coasts  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, and  there  was  accordingly  much  less  interchange  of  these  staple  com- 
modities among  the  nations  of  antiquity  than  with  ourselves  whose  relations  extend 
through  so  many  zones  of  temperature.  Hence,  probably,  we  hear  of  none  of  their 
great  cities  becoming  the  workshops  or  emporiumsof  the  world.for  any  special  arti- 
cle of  commerce.  The  woolens  indeed  of  Miletus  and  Laodicea,  together  with  other 
places  of  Asia  Minor,  were  renowned  for  their  excellence,  and  may  have  been  trans- 
ported as  articles  of  luxury  to  distant  parts;  but  Africa  and  Spain,  Italy  and  parts 
of  Greece,  were  also  breeders  of  sheep,  and  none  of  these  countries  depended  for 
this  prime  necessary  on  the  industry  or  cupidity  of  foreigners.  The  finest  qualities 
of  Greek  and  Asiatic  wines  were  bespoken  at  Rome  and  at  every  other  great  seat  of 
luxury.  The  Chian  and  Lesbian  vintages  were  among  the  most  celebrated.  .  .  . 
Again,  while  the  clothing  of  the  mass  of  the  population  was  made  perhaps  mainly 
from  the  skins  of  animals,  leather  of  course  could  be  obtained  abundantly  in  almost 
every  locality.  When  we  remember  that  the  ancients  had  neither  tea,  coffee, 
tobacco,  sugar  nor  for  the  most  part  spirits;  that  they  made  little  use  of  glass,  and 
at  this  period  had  hardly  acquired  a  taste  for  fabrics  of  silk,  cotton  or  even  flax, 
we  shall  perceive  at  a  glance  how  large  a  portion  of  the  chief  articles  of  our  com- 
merce was  entirely  wanting  to  theirs.  Against  this  deficiency,  however,  many 
objects  of  great  importance  are  to  be  set.  Though  the  ruder  classes  were  content 
with  wooden  cups  and  platters  fashioned  at  their  own  doors,  the  transport  of  earthen- 
ware of  the  finer  and  more  precious  kinds,  and  from  certain  localities,  was  very 
considerable.  Though  the  Greeks  and  Romans  generally  were  without  some  of  our 
commonest  implements  of  gold  and  silver,  such  for  in.stance  as  watches  and  forks, 
it  is  probable  that  they  indulged  even  more   than  we    do    in    personal    decorations 

with  rings,  seals  and  trinkets  of  a  thousand  descriptions The  convey 

ance  of  wild  animals,  chiefly  from  Africa,  for  the  sports  of  the  amphitheatres  of 
some  hundred  cities  throughout  the  empire,  umst  have  alone  given  occupation  to  a 
large  fleet  of   ships  and  many  thousand   mariners.     Nor  were  the  convoys  smaller 


NATIONS  OF  ANTIQUITY. 


which  were  employed  to  transport  marble  from  the  choicest  quarries  of  Greece  and 
Asia  to  many  flourishing  cities  besides  the  metropolis After  due  deduc- 
tion for  the  more  contracted  sphere  of  ancient  commerce,  and  the  lesser  number  of 
articles,  for  the  extent  also  to  which  the  necessaries  and  conveniences  of  life  were 
manufactured  at  home  in  the  establishments  of  wealthy  slave  owners,  we  shall  still 
readily  believe  that  the  inter-communication  of  the  cities  of  the  Mediterranean,  such 
as  Corinth,  Rhodes,  Ephesus,  Cyzicus,  Antioch,  Tyrus,  Alexandria,  Cyrene,  Athens, 
Carthage,  Tarraco,  Narbo  and  Massilia,  Neapolis  and  Tarentum,  Syracuse  and  Agri- 
gentum  and  of  all  with  Rome,  must  have  been  a  potent  instrument  in  fusing  into 

one  family  the   manifold    nations   of   the    empire In  the  eyes  of  the 

Orientals  and  the  Greeks,  the  mistress  of  lands  and  continents,  the  leader  of  armies 
and  the  builder  of  roads  was  regarded  as  the  greatest  of  all  maritime  emporiums 
and  represented  in  their  figurative  style  as  a  woman  sitting  enthroned  upon  the 
waves  of  the  Mediterranean.  The  maritime  aspect  thus  assumed  by  Rome  in  the 
eyes  of  her  subjects  beyond  the  sea,  is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  consider  how 
directly  her  ancient  policy  and  habits  were  opposed  to  commercial  developments. 
.  .  .  .  The  landowners  of  Rome,  in  the  heigh-day  of  her  insolent  adolescence, 
had  denounced  both  the  commerce  and  the  arts  as  the  business  of  slaves  or  freed- 
men.  So  late  as  the  year  535  a  law  had  been  passed  which  forbade  a  senator  to 
possess  a  vessel  of   burden,  and  the  traffic  which  was  prohibited  to  the  higher  class 

was  degraded  in  the  eyes  of  the  lower It  was  thus  by  following  the 

natural  train  of  circumstances  and  by  no  settled  policy  of  her  own,  that  Rome 
secured  her  march  across  the  sea,  and  joined  coast  to  coast  with  the  indissoluble  chain 
of  her  dominion.     On  land,  on  the  contrary,  she  constructed  her  militarj'  causeways 

with  a  fixed  and  definite  purpose The  population  of   Gaul    crept,  we 

know,  slowly  up  the  channel  of  the  rivers,  and  the  native  tracks  which  conveyed 
their  trafiic  from  station  to  station  were  guided  by  these  main  arteries  of  their  vital 
system.  But  the  conquerors  struck  out  at  once  a  complete  system  of  comnmnication 
for  their  own  purposes,  by  means  of  roads  cut  or  built  as  occasion  required,  with  a 
settled  policy  rigidly  pursued.  These  high  roads  as  we  may  well  call  them,  for  they 
were  raised  above  the  level  of  the  plains  and  the  banks  of  the  rivers,  and  climbed 
the  loftiest  hills,  were  driven  in  direct  lines  from  point  to  point,  and  were  stopped 
by  neither  forest  nor  marsh  nor  mountain.' 

The  state  of  things  which  arose  on  the  collapse  of  the  Roman  empire  present 
two  concurrent  facts,  deeply  affecting  the  course  of  trade.  ( i )  the  ancient  seats  of 
industry  and  civilization  were  undergoing  constant  decay,  while  (2)  the  energetic 
races  of  Europe  were  rising  into  more  civilized  forms  and  manifold  vigor  and  copi- 
ousness of  life.  The  fall  of  the  Eastern  division  of  the  empire  prolonged  the  effect 
of  the  fall  of  the  Western  empire;  and  the  advance  of  the  Saracens  over  Asia  Minor, 
Syria,  Greece,  Egypt,  over  Cyprus  and  other  possessions  of  Venice  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean, over  the  richest  provinces  of  Spain,  and  finally  across  the  Hellespont  into 
the  Danubian  provinces  of  Europe,  was  a  new  irruption  of  barbarians  from  another 
point  of  the  compass,  and  revived  the  calamities  and  disorders  inflicted  by  the  suc- 
cessive invasions  of  Goths,  Huns  and  other  Northern  tribes.  For  more  than  ten 
centuries  the  naked  power  of  the  sword  was  vivid  and  terrible  as  flashes  of  lightning 
over  all  the  seats  of  commerce,  whether  of  ancient  or  more  modern  origin.' 

But  meanwhile  these  immigrations  had  caused  the  almost  entire  decay  of  agri- 
culture and  industry.  During  the  four  or  five  centuries  in  which  they  took  place 
the  finest  regions  of  Europe  became  unfruitful  and  desolate.  It  was  impossible  in 
such  troubled  times  to  improve  the  fertility  of  the  soil  by  renewed  applications  of 
■capital  and  skill.     And  of  course  the  condition  of  internal  trade  was  hardly  superior 

■  C.  Merivale,  History  of  the  Romatis,  Ch.  39. 

-Encyclopasdia  Britaniiica,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  200 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


to  that  of  agriculture,  and  for  the  same  reasons.  For  some  centuries  there  is  no 
trace  of  any  important  manufactures,  except  of  course  those  domestic  arts  of  weaving 
and  spinning  which  are  absolutely  necessary  for  providing  clothes,  and  which  can 
be  practiced  by  separate  individuals  in  every  village  or  household.  Rich  men, 
indeed,  used  to  keep  artisans  in  their  households  as  servants;  but  this  only  shows 
that  there  were  no  recognized  seats  of  manufacture  from  which  they  could  easily 
procure  what  they  wanted.  Even  kings  in  the  ninth  century  had  their  clothes  made 
by  women  upon  their  farms.  No  doubt  the  villages  had  their  smiths  and  weavers, 
but  these  occupations  belonged  to  a  few  isolated  individuals,  and  had  not  yet  devel- 
oped to  any  considerable  branch  of  industry.  Trade  between  various  localities  was 
verj-  limited,  for  the  general  insecurity  of  the  times  made  mercantile  traffic  highly 
dangerous.  The  want  of  communication  prevented  men  from  easily  moving  about 
to  supply  one  another's  wants  and  at  the  same  time  made  it  difficult  for  them  to 
find  out  what  these  wants  were.  Robbery  bj'  violence  was  frequent  and  robberj-  by 
extortionate  tolls  still  more  so.  The  ordinary  knight  of  those  times  was  nothing 
more  or  less  than  a  bandit,  perhaps  not  always  so  openly  criminal  as  a  highwayman, 
but  very  often  emploj'ing  the  .same  methods.  They  made  merchants  pay  extravagant 
tolls  at  every  bridge  and  market  and  along  everj'  highway  in  their  domains.  Fre- 
quent complaints  of  these  exactions  are  found  in  Karl  the  Great's  capitularies  or 
enactments,  and  the  most  open  robbery  was  practiced  by  the  German  barons. 

This  state  of  things  naturally  ruined  industry  and  prevented  the  development 
of  manufactures  or  of  the  products  of  the  soil.  Hence  Europe  in  general  had  prac- 
tically nothing  to  offer  in  exchange  for  the  products  of  Asia,  the  only  other  con- 
tinent then  open  to  commerce.  This  is  the  reason  why  for  so  many  centuries  we 
have  hardly  any  foreign  trade.  Almost  the  only  imports  were  fine  Eastern  cloths 
and  spices  for  the  nobility.  But  how  were  these  paid  for?  In  return  Europe  gave 
the  East  gold  and  silver — the  remnants,  apparently,  of  the  money  in  circulation 
under  the  Roman  empire,  but  the  supply  of  which  thus  greatly  diminished  before 
the  eleventh  century.  Armor  and  furs  were  also  exported.  A  great  feature  in  Euro- 
pean exports  was,  however,  the  slave  trade ;  for  often  only  by  the  sale  of  slaves  were 
the  upper  classes,  as  they  were  called,  euabled  to  pay  for  the  Eastern  luxuries  they 
desired.  Karloman,  the  brother  of  Karl  the  Great,  made  a  law  to  try  and  stop  this  sale 
of  European  slaves  to  the  Saracens,  but  it  was  ineffectual.  This  and  indeed  all 
other  trade  was  carried  on  via  Constantinople  by  the  only  two  trading  centres  of 
importance  in  those  ages,  Venice  and  Amalfi. ' 

Conclusions. 
A  study  of  the  nations  of  antiquity  reveals  two  facts  of  importance.  In 
the  first  place  the  branch  of  commerce  chiefly  followed  by  the  ancients  was 
the  carrying  trade  to  which  they  were  impelled  by  the  necessity  of  their 
situation.  In  the  second  place  no  nation  has  ever  yet  permitted  its  people 
to  live  in  idleness,  neglected  to  cultivate  its  own  fields  and  permitted  its 
domestic  industries  to  fall  into  decay  and  ruin  without  sapping  the  very 
foundation  of  its  national  life.  The  chief  source  of  wealth  from  the  earli- 
est time,  the  means  by  which  the  greatness  and  happiness  of  nations  have 
most  surely  been  attained  in  all  ages  and  among  all  peoples,  have  been  the 
application  of  labor  and  capital  to  native  industry  and  the  opening  of  pur- 
suits which  have  furnished  the  most  employment  to  the  largest  ntmiber  of 
people.     In  regard  to  the  nations  of  antiquity  it  should  be  further  noted 

1  History  of  Commerce  in  Europe,  pages  33,  34 


NATIONS  OF  ANTIQUITY. 


that  not  one  ever  attained  commercial  greatness  in  the  face  of  an  active 
competition.  The  great  commercial  nations  always  enjoyed  a  form  of 
natural  protection  in  their  geographical  situation  or  in  the  possession  of 
some  peculiar  advantages. 

Rome  furnishes  to  the  world  the  greatest  lesson  in  economics  of  all 
the  ancient  civilizations.  The  merits  of  those  two  policies  which  in 
modern  times  have  formed  the  basis  of  the  opposing  systems  of  protection 
and  free  trade  were  tested.  At  first  the  domestic  resources  of  Italy  were 
relied  upon  as  the  principal  source  of  her  prosperity.  Later,  the  culti- 
vation of  the  soil  was  abandoned,  and  the  imperial  city  drew  her  food 
supplies  from  foreign  countries.  In  the  early  history  of  Rome,  in  what 
was  known  as  her  Golden  Age,  the  virtue,  industry  and  patriotism  of 
those  citizens  who  cultivated  the  soil  were  the  strength  and  greatness  of 
the  Republic.  Rome  was  most  fortunately  situated  in  the  heart  of  one  of 
the  most  fertile  and  productive  regions  of  Europe.  She  held  within  her- 
self the  resources  from  which  an  ambitious,  enterprising  and  industrious 
people  could  acquire  greatness  and  material  wealth.  During  the  palmy 
days  of  the  Roman  Republic,  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  and  various  pur- 
suits of  industry  were  regarded  as  honorable  and  dignified  occupations. 
Cincinnatus,  one  of  the  greatest  patriots  of  the  age,  left  his  plow  to  take 
the  reins  of  government.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Rome  defeated 
Carthage,  after  holding  out  for  twenty-seven  years  against  the  invading 
army  of  Hannibal.  It  was  this  age  which  gave  to  Rome,  Cato,  Scipio 
and  those  statesmen  and  soldiers  who  are  particularly  distinguished  for 
their  patriotism  and  courage  in  the  defence  of  their  country.  But  this 
policy  was  abandoned.  The  loyal  hardy  yeomen  were  supplanted,  and 
from  Naples  to  Gaul,  Italy  became  cultivated  by  slaves.  Wheat  and  cattle 
were  brought  from  Egj'pt,  the  island  of  Britain  and  other  provinces. 
The  people  of  Rome  were  fed  on  the  products  of  other  countries.  They 
neglected  not  only  agriculture,  but  manufacturing.  Their  clothing  and 
implements  and  other  wares  were  brought  from  the  East.  All  the  wealth 
brought  from  foreign  countries  to  the  imperial  city  did  not  compensate 
her  for  the  loss  sustained  by  her  failure  to  develop  her  own  resources. 
She  made  the  fatal  mistake  of  neglecting  domestic  production  and 
attempting  to  live  by  foreign  commerce.  In  the  best  days  of  the  Republic, 
when  it  was  invaded  by  Hannibal,  the  most  consummate  general  of  the 
time,  Rome  was  saved  by  that  sturdy  people  imbued  with  a  love  of 
country,  who  were  ready  to  defend  the  imperial  city  at  the  sacrifice  of 
their  treasures  and  their  lives.  At  this  time  Rome  meant  something  to 
her  own  people. 

After  the  domestic  resources  of  the  country  had  been  destroyed,  her 
sturdy  patriotic  citizens  wiped  out  and  replaced  by  slaves,  she  was  weak 
and  defenceless,  although  her  nobles  and  senators  had  become  rich  from 
the  spoils  and  profits  of  foreign  conquest  and  trade.      In  the  fifth  century. 


from  Ike 
history  of 


COMMERCIAL  HlfiTORY  TO  1650. 


when  the  barbarian  hordes  of  the  North  swept  down  upon  Italy,  instead 
of  finding  a  people  who  were  ready  to  fight  for  their  own  homes,  firesides 
and  personal  interests,  they  found  a  mass  of  people  who  despised  their 
own  country  and  were  as  willing  to  see  the  imperial  city  destroyed  as  the 
invaders  were  to  destroy  her.  Rome  had  no  friends  at  home.  The  cor- 
rupt and  vicious  aristocracy  of  wealth  which  had  lived  and  prospered  by 
sapping  the  life  not  only  of  her  own  people,  but  of  her  provinces,  were  not 
only  powerless  but  were  ready  to  flee  to  Constantinople  or  any  other  city 
where  they  could  hide  their  wealth. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Industriai,  Development  op  Italian  and  German  Cities  in  the 
Middle  Ages. 

No  attempt  will  be  made  to  recount  the  commercial  history  of  Euro- 
pean nations  during  the  period  indicated,  but  merel}'  to  present  the  chief 
features  in  the  economic  development  of  some  of  the  leading  commercial 
communities  and  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the  influences  that  shaped  their 
commercial  destiny — the  causes  of  their  prosperity  and  their  decline. 

During  those  centuries  known  as  the  Dark  Ages,  all  progress  was 
completely  arreste'd  and  a  condition  of  savagery  and  barbarism  prevailed 
throughout  Western  Europe.  It  was  not  until  about  the  twelfth  century 
that  Western  Europe  began  to  rise  from  this  debased  condition  and  take 
on  that  national  life  which  made  progress  possible.  The  industrial 
activitj'  which  made  its  appearance  at  this  time  in  Italy  and  Flanders, 
and  among  the  German  cities  of  the  North,  marks  an  epoch  of  the  great- 
est importance  in  the  historj-  of  the  world.  It  was  not,  however,  until 
the  seventeenth  century  that  England,  France,  Germanj-,  Switzerland  and 
all  of  the  countries  of  Europe  turned  their  attention  to  those  manufactur- 
ing pursuits  which,  in  recent  times  and  especially  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tur>^  have  increased  their  wealth  and  independence  and  added  so  much  to 
the  material  welfare  of  their  people. 

The  slow  but  steady  growth  of  this  phase  of  European  civilization  is 
worthy  of  the  attention  of  those  who  are  seeking  after  the  causes  of  the 
material  prosperity  of  nations.  The  growth  of  this  side  of  a  nation's  life 
is,  in  great  part,  an  intellectual  development,  arising  from  the  cultivation 
of  skill  and  artistic  taste.  The  manufacturing  supremacy  of  a  nation  does 
not  consist  wholly  in  what  is  known  as  manual  labor.  The  industrial  pro- 
ficiency of  a  people,  the  wares  they  make,  the  articles  which  enter  into  their 
trade  and  commerce,  are  among  the  surest  means  of  attesting  the  degree 
of  their  civilization.  There  is  no  doubt  that  as  these  faculties  and  tastes 
develop  in  the  parents,  they  are  transmitted  to  the  children,  and  that 
which  is  difiicult  for  one  generation  to  perform,  becomes  second  nature 
to  the  next.  It  has  been  by  centuries  of  education  and  training,  that  the 
people  of  Western  Europe  have  produced  the  most  skillful,  apt  and  effi- 
cient artisans  in  the  world.  For  two  hundred  years  their  fine  fabrics 
have  surpassed  any  that  have  been  made  in  other  countries.  The  skill 
and  taste  displayed  in  their  new  and  beautiful  patterns  and  designs, 
which  appear  ever>'  year  in  all  markets,  are  not  only  the  results  of 
long  years  of  cultivation,  but  also  by  the  development  of  a  special 
(17) 


The  rise  of 
the  Italian 


Venice 
compelled 
by  her  situ- 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 

genius  taught  in  technical  schools  supported  by  their  government. 
The  one  hundred  and  sixty  millions  of  people  now  in  Western  Europe 
with  the  technical  knowledge,  genius  and  special  aptitudes  which  they 
possess  in  all  branches  of  production,  their  increased  productive  capacity 
by  the  use  of  labor-saving  machinery,  the  accumulated  capital  of  cen- 
turies, with  their  means  of  transportation  and  knowledge  of  business 
affairs,  are  undoubtedly  able  to  supply  the  rest  of  the  world  with 
every  conceivable  article  of  manufacture.  This  position  has  not  been 
attained  in  a  day,  but  by  centuries  of  most  skillful  and  persistent  direc- 
tion of  the  energies  of  the  people  through  powerful  governments. 
The  period  between  the  twelfth  and  seventeenth  centuries  transformed 
the  people  from  mere  cultivators  of  the  soil  into  artisans,  tradesmen, 
shopkeepers,  and  developed  every  phase  of  industrial  life.  It  stands 
between  the  Dark  Ages  and  modern  times.  It  was  at  the  close  of  this 
period  that  the  new  world  was  discovered  and  the  sea'  route  to  India  was 
made  known.  The  industrial  activity  which  aro.se  at  this  time,  by  increas- 
ing the  independence  of  the  people  and  giving  them  new  means  of  employ- 
ment, undoubtedly  aided  in  their  emancipation  and  the  modification  of 
tyrannical  forms  of  government  and  unjust  laws. 

During  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  fourteenth,  fifteenth,  .sixteenth  and  a 
part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  there  were  only  two  countries  in  Europe. 
namely,  Italy  and  the  Netherlands,  which  attained  a  sufficient  degree  of 
perfection  and  power  in  manufacturing  and  trade,  to  give  them  a  standing 
among  great  commercial  nations.  During  this  period  the  cities  of  Italy 
(first  Venice  and  later  Florence,  Genoa,  Pisa  and  Milan),  engaged  in 
manufacturing  and  also  controlled  the  carrying  trade  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea.  The  rise,  development  and  progress  of  the  industrial  life  of  these 
cities  mark  a  very  interesting  period  in  the  commercial  history  of  the 
world.  It  was  the  beginning  of  the  movement  of  the  people  of  the  West 
toward  manufacturing  and  the  development  of  those  domestic  pursuits  and 
resources  which  had  been  regarded  as  of  little  importance  by  the  people 
of  antiquity.  The  Italian  cities  imitated  the  industries  of  Asia  and  intro- 
duced the  manufacture  of  silks,  cotton,  dye  stuffs,  fine  pottery,  glassware 
and  other  articles  into  Europe,  thus  making  these  towns  the  industrial 
centres  which  for  centuries  have  supplied  the  world  with  the  richest, 
most  artistic  and  most  beautiful  wares  and  fabrics.  They  turned  the  peo- 
ple of  Europe  to  a  study  of  the  arts  and  mysteries  of  manufacturing,  and 
to  a  cultivation  of  a  taste  for  that  high  degree  of  perfection  in  industrial 
pursuits,  which  during  the  nineteenth  centurj'  has  contributed  .so  largely 
to  the  commercial  power  and  greatness  of  the  Continent. 

Fleeing  from  the  savage  hordes  of  barbarians,  who  invaded  Italy 
under  Attila  the  Hun  in  452,  the  Venetian  refugees  found  shelter  and 
protection  among  the  marshy  islands  on  the  north  coast  of  the  Adriatic 
Sea.     They  built    habitations  on    piles   driven    into    the   ground.      Their 


ITALIAN  AND  GERMAN  CITIES. 

only  food  for  a  time  was  the  fish  taken  from  the  sea,  cured  with  the  salt 
extracted  from  its  brine.  Inhabiting  a  group  of  fishing  villages,  with  no 
land  fit  to  cultivate,  they  were  compelled  to  look  to  the  ocean  for  means 
of  subsistence  and  naturally  became  mariners. 

For  250  years,  that  is  to  say  for  eight  generations,  the  refugees  on  the  islands 
of  the  Adriatic  prolonged  an  obscure  and  squalid  existence,  fishing,  salt  manu 
facturing,  damming  out  the  waves  with  wattled  vine  branches,  driving  piles  intc 
the  sand  banks  and  thus  gradually  extending  the  area  of  their  villages.  Still  these 
were  but  fishing  villages,  loosely  confederated  together,  loosely  governed,  poor 
and  insignificant.  This  seems  to  have  been  their  condition,  though  perhaps 
gradually  growing  in  commercial  importance  until  at  the  beginning  of  the  eightl 
century,  the  concentration  of  political  authority  in  the  hands  of  the  finst  Doge 
and  the  recognition  of  the  Rialto  cluster  of  islands  as  the  capital  of  the  Confed- 
eracy started  the  republic  on  a  career  of  success  and  victory.' 

It  was  under  these  conditions  that  the  Venetians  became  fishermen 
and  .skillful  mariners.  They  gradually  extended  their  voyages  and  enter- 
prises along  the  coast  of  the  Adriatic  and  the  Mediterranean  and  finally 
became  the  most  important  and  wealthy  trading  people  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
That  they  should  have  exerted  their  energies  in  this  direction  was  most 
natural,  it  being  the  only  outlet  and  means  of  building  up  their  city  and 
securing  for  themselves  employment,  wealth  and  independence.  It  was 
not  a  question  of  choice,  but  purely  one  of  necessity.  In  the  eleventh 
century  when  all  Europe  was  ablaze  with  the  religious  enthusiasm  of 
the  crusaders,  Venice  became  a  central  point  from  which  troops  and 
supplies  were  embarked  for  the  East  and  a  halting  and  recruiting 
station  for  the  armies  which  poured  over  the  Continent  from  England, 
Flanders  and  France,  to  the  Holy  Land.  The  Venetians,  at  this  time, 
were  the  only  people  who,  to  any  extent,  could  supply  the  crusaders  with 
transports  for  the  expeditions.  To  meet  this  emergency  their  ships  and 
seamen  were  increased,  and  large  profits  were  made  from  the  enterprises. 
Feudal  lords  of  Western  Europe  and  of  England,  who  embarked  in  these 
military  crusades,  in  many  instances  mortgaged  their  estates  to  obtain 
funds  with  which  to  hire  ships  from  the  Italians  for  these  voyages. 
Those  who  lived  to  return  carried  back  ideas  of  an  extravagant  mode  of 
living,  which  spread  over  Western  Europe  and  created  a  new  demand 
among  the  nobility  for  the  luxuries  and  wares  of  the  East ;  hence,  an 
increased  trade  sprang  up  between  the  East  and  West.  As  soon  as  the 
prejudices  of  the  wars  between  the  Christian  and  Mohammedans  subsided, 
the  Venetians,  quick  to  take  advantage  of  the  new  conditions,  entered 
upon  this  trade  with  great  vigor  and  enterprise.  The  whole  commerce 
between  the  East  and  West  fell  naturally  into  their  hands.  As  trade 
expanded  other  Italian  cities  grew  in  importance;  Genoa,  Pisa  and  Flor- 
ence  all    became   great  commercial    cities    during    this    period.      The 

'  T.  Hodgkiii,   Italy  and  Her  Invaders,  Bk.  2,  Ch.  4. 


Profits  of 

from  the 
transporta- 
tion of  the 
crusaders. 


COSniERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


monopoly  of  this  trade  bj'  the  Italians  enabled  them  to  concentrate  a  large 
portion  of  the  circulating  wealth  of  the  commercial  world,  in  the  hands 
of  their  merchants,  shippers,  manufacturers  and  bankers.  The  monopolj- 
of  this  trade  was  so  complete  for  many  centuries  that  the  natural  accumu- 
lation of  profits  enabled  the  Italians  to  build  magnificent  cities,  live  in 
opulence  and  splendor,  and  enjoy  a  degree  of  prosperity  which  was  almost 
unrivaled  and  which  certainly,  up  to  that  time,  had  not  been  excelled  bj^ 
any  people.  The  trade  controlled  embraced  all  of  those  exchanges  carried 
on  between  England,  Western  Europe  and  the  far  East  as  well  as  the 
entire  trafiic  between  the  cities  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  The 
luxuries  of  the  East  were  exchanged  for  the  coarser  products  and  precious 
metals  of  the  North  and  West.  From  Asia,  Africa  and  the  ports  of  the 
Black  Sea  they  obtained  spices,  perfumes,  precious  stones,  gum,  oil,  cot- 
ton, silks,  velvets,  saddlery  and  weapons  of  various  kinds,  especially  the 
equipages  for  the  knights  and  barons,  the  famous  swords  and  saddlery  of 
Damascus  which  at  that  time  was  a  great  centre  for  the  manufacture  of 
military  accoutrements.  These  luxuries  and  comforts  of  the  East  were 
distributed  throughout  the  cities  of  the  Western  coast  of  Europe  and  Eng- 
land. They  were  sent  in  ships  to  the  British  channel  and  conveyed  by 
overland  routes  into  the  heart  of  Europe,  and  sold  at  the  fairs  and  trading 
centres  of  the  Continent. 

Gibbins  says  of  the  shipping  of  the  Venetians  at  this  time: 
Her  ships  generally  went  out  in  squadrons  with  some  men-of-war  as  a  convoy, 
and  every  year  a  number  of  these  squadrons  set  out  regularly  for  prescribed  ports, 
following  a  strictly  arranged  route  and  sailing  at  definite  periotfs.  The  most  notable 
of  these  trading  fleets  were  the  Flanders  fleet  which  traded  with  the  ports  of  Spain, 
Portugal,  west  of  France,  England  and  finally  Flanders;  the  Armenian  fleet  which 
sailed  to  Aros  in  the  Gulf  of  Alexandrietta ;  the  Black  Sea  fleet  which  visited  Tana, 
Azof,  the  Crimea  and  Pontic  coast  generally,  and  the  Egyptian  fleet  which  went  to 
.•Mexaiidria  and  Cairo,  meeting  the  caravans  from  the  far  East.  A  considerable 
overland  trade  was  also  done  with  Germany  via  Vienna,  Augsburg  and  the  Rhine.' 

At  Alexandria  the  products  of  India,  consisting  of  spices,  cotton, 
fruits  and  ivory,  were  received  and  exchanged  for  gold  and  silver  metals, 
and  for  iron,  lead,  copper,  oil  and  timber.  Ivory,  gold-dust,  dates 
and  wool  were  obtained  from  the  caravans  of  Africa.  Raw  wool  and 
silk  from  the  East  were  converted  into  fabrics  by  their  artisans,  and 
a  system  of  diversified  industries  was  carried  on  to  an  extent  which 
rivaled,  if  not  excelled,  the  commercial  enterprise,  prosperity  and  wealth 
of  all  the  other  peoples.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  fourteenth  centnrx- 
Venice  became  the  greate.st  connnercial  and  maritime  city  in  the  world. 
McCulloch  says : 

Her  marine  commerce  was  probably  not  inferior  to  that  of  all  the  rest  of  Christen- 
dom combined  and  her  ve.s.sels  visited  every  port  of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  coast 
of   Europe.     Her  exports  by  sea  alone  amounted  to  10,000,000  ducats  a   year  which 
1  History  of  the  Commerce  of  Europe,  p.  50. 


ITALIAN  AND  GERJIAN  CITIES. 


yielded  profits  and  freights  of  4,ooo,cxx)  ducats  to  her  merchants.  Her  shipping 
consisted  of  3000  vessels  of  from  100  to  200  tons  burden,  manned  by  17,000  sailors 
and  300  ships  of  8000  sailors  and  45  galleys,'  being  vessels  constructed  for  the  com- 
bined purpose  of  war  and  commerce,  each  carrying  fifty  pieces  of  cannon  and  a 
crew  of  600  men.' 

Gibbins  says  that  at  this  time  there  were  at  least  1000  nobles  in  the 
city  whose  incomes  ranged  from  4000  to  70,000  ducats  each  and  that  at  a 
time  when  3000  ducats  would  buy  a  palace. 

The  Italian  cities  did  not  confine  themselves  wholly  to  the  shipping 
and  carrying  trade,  although  they  bought  extensively  in  one  foreign 
country  to  sell  in  another,  and  undoubtedly  pushed  this  branch  of  trade 
with  as  much  energy  as  possible;  yet  they  early  gave  their  attention  to 
manufacturing,  which  opened  a  field  for  the  investment  of  capital,  the 
employment  of  labor  and  combined  with  their  foreign  trade,  added 
immeasurably  to  their  prosperity  and  wealth.  The  manufacturers  of 
Venice  were  brought  at  once  into  direct  competition  with  those  of  Asia 
Minor,  Damascus  and  other  cities  of  the  East.  They  imitated  the  arts 
and  industries  of  their  foreign  rivals  in  making  silks,  paper,  jewelry- 
glass  and  glassware,  woolen  and  cotton  cloths,  golden  brocades,  armor 
swords  and  saddlery.  The  significant  feature  of  this  phase  of  their 
industrial  life  is  the  important  lesson  it  teaches  of  the  necessity  in 
all  ages,  of  meeting  foreign  competition  and  building  up  domestic 
industries  again.st  such  rivals,  by  a  policy  of  protection  to  native 
industry.  Venice  furnishes  one  of  the  earliest  illustrations  of  the 
wisdom  of  this  policy.  M.  Darn  in  his  valuable  "Histoire  de  la  Repu- 
blique  de  la  Venise,' '  quoting  from  the  statutes  of  the  republic,  gives  a  most 
interesting  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  imports  of  foreign  manu- 
factured articles  for  domestic  consumption  were  forbidden.  The  whole 
system  of  domestic  productions  was  regulated  by  law.  The  policy  of  the 
government  favored  the  sale  of  Venetian  wares  instead  of  Oriental 
goods  by  their  merchants.  The  statute  law  of  Venice  aimed  also, 
to  confine  to  the  people  of  Venice,  the  results  of  their  improvement, 
their  discoveries  and  inventions  in  these  industries,  by  making  it 
practically  impossible  that  the  people  of  other  countries  should  learn  their 
mysteries  and  imitate  their  wares.     The  law  of  Venice  reads  as  follows  : 

If  any  workman  or  artisan  carry  his  art  to  a  foreign  country  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  republic,  he  shall  be  ordered  to  return;  if  he  do  not  obey,  his  nearest  rela- 
tions shall  be  imprisoned  that  his  regard  for  them  may  induce  him  to  come  back. 
If  he  return  the  past  shall  be  forgiven  and  employment  shall  be  provided  for  him 
in  Venice.  If  in  despite  of  the  imprisonment  of  his  relations  he  perseveres  in  his 
absence,  an  emissary  shall  be  employed  to  dispatch  him  and  after  his  death  his 
relations  shall  be  set  at  liberty. 

The  trade  guilds  were  also  encouraged  and  they  became  so  popular 
in  Venice  that  distinguished  citizens  enrolled  their  names  among  their 

1  McCuUoch's  Commercial  Dictionary,  Edition  1S51.  p.  1381. 


ompetition 


(JOMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


members.  Dante,  the  great  poet,  was  a  member  of  the  guild  of  apoth- 
ecaries. The  Venetians  dignified  all  pursuits  of  productive  industry.  By 
throwing  about  them  the  shield  of  protection,  the  artisans  and  manufac- 
turers were  enabled  to  follow  their  crafts,  unassailed  by  foreign  rivals. 
Under  such  stimulus,  a  high  degree  of  proficiency  and  skill  was  reached 
and  the  wares  of  Venice  became  noted  for  their  beauty,  fineness  and  per- 
fection in  all  the  markets  of  Europe.  That  this  system  of  diversifying 
and  encouraging  domestic  industry  contributed  largely  to  the  wealth, 
prosperity  and  permanence  of  Venice,  there  can  be  no  question.  This 
policy  made  every  one  feel  proud  that  he  was  a  citizen  of  Venice,  and 
maintained  a  spirit  of  patriotism  and  interest  in  the  republic,  which  was 
one  of  its  greatest  sources  of  .strength.  The  direction  of  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  to  the  production  of  the  finer  fabrics  and  more  delicate 
articles  of  commerce,  undoubtedly  contributed  toward  the  development 
of  that  genius  displayed  by  the  Italians  in  latter  years  in  the  higher 
realms  of  art.  Venice  was  noted  throughout  the  commercial  world  for  her 
manufactures  of  fine  silks,  woolens,  cottons,  etc.  McCulloch  says,  "The 
glass  manufactures  of  Venice  were  the  first,  and  for  a  long  time  the  most 
famous  in  Europe. ' '  Dye  stuffs,  soap,  paper,  refined  sugar  and  fine  leather 
were  also  made  in  large  quantities.  In  her  extensive  brass  and  iron  found- 
ries metal  goods  were  produced  in  great  varieties.  Her  armor  and  weapons 
were  sold  in  all  foreign  markets.  Florence  was  famed  for  her  jewelers  and 
goldsmiths,  and  her  woolens,  silk  fabrics,  and  golden  brocades.  Naples, 
Genoa  and  Milan  also  manufactured  silk,  and  it  was  likewise  produced  in 
the  district  about  Lyons  in  France  and  in  the  eastern'  part  of  Spain. 
Milan  also  was  famous  for  its  fine  silks  and  armor.  Silk  embroideries, 
saddles,  bridles  and  swords  were  at  that  time  made  in  Damascus  and  cities 
of  Asia,  which  were  famous  for  their  rare  and  costly  goods.  It  was  against 
the  competition  of  these  articles  of  the  East  that  Venice  imposed  her 
restrictions  in  favor  of  her  own  people. 

The  effect  of  the  di.scovery  of  the  route  to  India  around  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope  upon  the  Venetian  trade  has  been  greatly  misunderstood. 
The  Italian  cities  had  already  declined  at  the  time  this  route  was  made 
known.  Had  they  been  in  a  condition  to  avail  theni,selves  of  its  advan- 
tages they  could  as  readily  have  engaged  in  the  trade  with  India  as  the 
Dutch  or  Portuguese.  Moreover  the  discover)-  of  the  new  route  could  not 
have  affected  the  trade  with  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean 
and  Black  Seas,  which  were  as  accessible  to  the  Venetians  as  before.  Again, 
the  date  of  the  discovery  was  1497,  and  it  was  not  until  a  hundred  years 
after  this  that  any  considerable  traffic  by  the  new  channel  arose.  The  truth 
is  Venice  had  declined  and  her  commerce  was  practically  ruined  before 
this  route  was  di.scovered.  The  large  extension  of  her  territorj-  on  the 
mainland  in  the  fourteenth  century  turned  her  attention  from  commercial 
enterprises  to  schemes  of  territorial  aggrandizement,  transformed  her  from 


ITALIAN  AND  GEMMA N  CITIES. 


ail  essentially  naval  power  to  an  important  Continental  one,  and  involved 
her  in  ceaseless  intrigues  and  wars.  As  Italy  became  the  battle-ground 
of  Europe,  the  ser\'ice  of  Venice  was  thrown  into  the  balance  on  the 
occasion  of  almost  every  conflict.  Her  encroachments  provoked  the  anger 
of  her  neighbors,  who  united  with  powerful  monarchs  to  destroy  her.  The 
League  of  Cambray,  comprising  the  King  of  France,  the  Pope  and  minor 
princes,  was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  partitioning  her  territories,  and  but 
for  the  dissensions  of  its  members  would  have  succeeded  in  its  object.  In 
the  meanwhile  the  Turks,  destined  to  become  the  implacable  and  heredi- 
tary enemies  of  the  republic,  had  taken  Constantinople  (1453)  and  estab- 
lished the  Ottoman  power  over  the  territory  around  the  Black  Sea.  For 
two  centuries  Venice,  almost  unaided,  held  them  at  bay,  but  her  traffic 
suffered  and  many  of  her  colonies  were  lost.  Compelled  to  live  constantly 
on  the  defensive  against  the  Turks  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Italian  princes 
and  the  powers  of  Europe  on  the  other,  she  gradually  declined  in  strength 
and  her  commercial  empire  pas.sed  away. 

The  cities  of  Europe  sometimes  by  purchase,  sometimes  by  force,  and 
again  by  political  influences  attained  a  condition  of  practical  independence. 
By  charters  and  .special  privileges  obtained  from  monarchs,  they  secured  a 
degree  of  protection  against  the  arbitrarj^  exaction  of  feudal  lords  and 
exemptions  even,  in  many  instances,  from  certain  interferences  on  the  part 
of  the  government.  They  were  thus  enabled  to  set  up  manufactures, 
engage  in  various  trades  and  occupations,  without  being  plundered  and 
robbed. 

The  security  thus  acquired  induced  the  investment  of  capital  in 
manufacturing,  gave  encouragement  and  protection  to  guilds  and  associa- 
tions, which  instructed  the  apprentices,  employed  journeymen,  and  carried 
on  domestic  industries.  The  building  up  of  the  free  cities  of  the  Continent, 
through  a  system  of  municipal  aid  and  protection,  gave  the  first  impetus 
to  a  system  of  diversified  industries  in  central  and  Northern  Europe.  At 
fir,st  becoming  trading  centres  from  which  the  .surrounding  territory'  was 
supplied  with  their  manufactures,  they  gradually  extended  the  field  of 
their  operations,  and  by  combining  for  mutual  protection  were  enabled 
to  engage  in  foreign  commerce.  It  was  during  this  period,  and  in  the 
free  cities  of  Europe,  that  the  merchant  and  craft  guilds  had  their  origin 
and  reached  the  highest  point  of  their  perfection  and  power.  The  out- 
growth of  these  conditions  in  the  cities  of  Western  Europe  was  a  trading 
and  manufacturing  class  of  people,  which  laid  the  foundation  for  the 
commercial  greatness  of  that  region. 

While  the  trading  and  shipping  of  the  Mediterranean  and  of  Europe 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Italian  cities,  there  existed  in  Northern  and 
Western  Europe  a  union  of  cities  known  as  the  Hanse  Towns,  formed  for 
mutual  aid  and  protection  in  trade  and  commerce  and  exerting  a  wide 
influence  on  the  commercial  affairs  of  the  time. 


T/ie/ree 

Europe.— 
Theirin- 
dustrial 
growth. 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


The  Hanseatic  League  formed  as  early  as  1241,  and  continuing  until  the  latter 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  gave  the  first  note  of  the  increasing  traffic  between 
countries  on  the  Baltic  and  in  Northern  Germany,  which  a  centurj*  or  two  before 
were  sunk  in  barbarism.  Lubeck  and  Hamburg  commanding  the  navigation  of  the 
Elbe,    it  gradually  spread  over  eighty-five  towns,    including  Amsterdam,  Cologne 

Frankfort  in  the  South, 

and  all  the  important  cities  bordering  on  the  Baltic.  This  league  had 
entire  control  of  the  carr3nng  trade  and  commerce  of  Ru.ssia,  Denmark, 
Norway,  Sweden  and  the  Netherlands,  and  with  the  Italians,  con- 
trolled the  trade  of  England.  Its  merchants  exchanged  flax,  hemp, 
grains,  furs,  skins  of  bears  and  wolves,  for  linens,  woolens  and 
silks  of  the  South  and  West.  It  established  factories  and  commercial 
agencies  in  Europe  and  England.  All  of  the  fairs  and  trading  centres 
were  visited  by  its  agents.  Charters  and  privileges  were  secured  from 
kings  and  barons,  enabling  the  members  of  this  powerful  organiza- 
tion to  control  and  monopolize  even  the  retail  and  local  trade  of 
many  countries.  They  early  established  themselves  in  London,  and  for 
centuries,  under  special  charters  obtained  from  the  kings,  exercised  a 
controlling  influence  on  the  retail  as  well  as  on  the  wholesale  trade  of  the 
country.  They  were  finally  excluded  from  the  retail  trade,  but  their  head- 
quarters in  London,  known  as  the  Steelyard,  were  not  taken  from  them, 
and  their  privileges  finally  revoked  until  1597.  The  city  of  Bruges,  in 
the  Netherlands,  became  a  town  of  great  importance,  where  the  trading 
fleets  of  the  Hanse  merchants  met  the  Venetian  galleys  and  exchanged 
their  timber,  hemp,  flax,  pitch,  tar,  tallow,  grain,  fish',  etc.,  for  the  spices 
and  luxuries  of  the  East  as  well  as  for  the  domestic  manufactures  of 
Flanders  and  Italy. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Development  of  Trade  and  Industries  in  Western  Europe. 

The  primitive  inhabitants  of  the  Southern  part  of  the  Netherlands 
(now  modern  Belgium)  were  of  Celtic  and  German  stock.  The  Dutch  in- 
habitants of  the  Northern  portion  (or  what  is  now  modern  Holland)  were  of 
German  blood.  By  the  very  earliest  accounts  of  this  country,  at  the  close 
of  the  Dark  Ages,  these  people  are  found  far  in  advance  of  their  neighbors 
in  industrial  pursuits  and  civilization.  Although  differing  in  blood,  they 
had  many  things  in  common.  They  grew  up  side  by  side,  trading  and 
bartering  together.  Their  energies  took  a  decided  industrial  turn,  although 
they  were  exerted  in  different  fields.  The  spirit  of  industry  and  enterprise 
dominated  the  whole  of  the  Netherlands.  The  South  being  less  marshy 
and  better  adapted  to  agriculture,  the  people  became  cultivators  of  the  soil 
and  engaged  extensively  in  manufacturing.  While  the  Dutch,  from  the 
very  necessity  of  their  situation,  like  the  Venetians  and  the  ancient 
Phoenicians,  became  mariners  and  fishermen,  and  engaged  in  trade  and 
commerce. 

The  weaving  of  linen  and  woolen  cloth  made  the  Flemish  weavers 
famous  throughout  Europe.  The  making  of  cutlery,  armor,  weapons  and 
the  tanning  of  leather  formed  their  chief  industries.  Flax,  hemp  and 
other  products  of  the  soil,  carpets,  damask  and  velvets,  furnished  employ- 
ment for  the  people  in  all  of  their  principal  towns  and  villages;  yet  manu- 
facturing was  not  carried  on  as  extensively  in  the  North  as  in  the  South. 
The  wool  of  Spain  and  England  was  shipped  to  Flanders  to  be  dressed, 
dyed  and  woven  into  cloth,  and  sold  by  the  Flemish  and  Dutch  not  only 
to  the  Spanish  and  English,  but  throughout  Northern  and  Central  Europe. 
The  condition  of  their  industries  in  the  fourteenth  century  is  described  by 
Mr.  Gibbins  as  follows : 

Bruges,  Ghent,  Lillia  and  Ypres  possessed  great  commercial  prosperity.  Each 
of  them  had  about  forty  thousand  looms  constantly  at  work,  largely  supplied  with 
wool  from  England.  The  city  of  Ghent  in  the  year  1400  had  eighty  thousand  men 
capable  of  bearing  arms.  The  weavers  alone  furnished  twenty  thousand.  Amster- 
dam, Rotterdam  and  Leyden  were  also  great  seats  for  woolen  and  linen  manufactures. 

Mr.  Gibbins  relates  the  following  historical  anecdote,  which  throws 
mtich  light  upon  their  wealth  and  independence  at  this  time: 

Many  stories  are  told  illustratingthe  wealth  of  their  industries  and  manufactures. 

In   1351,  for  instance,  when  the  Burgomasters  of   Ghent,  Ypres  and  Bruges  went  to 

Paris  to  pay  homage  to  King  John,  they  were  received  with  what  the  French  thought 

great  pomp  and  ceremony,  but  somehow  they  seemed   dissatisfied,  for  at  the  great 

(25) 


between  the 
Soziikern 
and  North- 


Prosperity 
of  the 
Flemings. 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


Spanish 
oppressii 


banquet  which  was  provided  in  their  honor,  their  seats  at  table  were  not  furnished 
with  cushions,  so  to  show  their  dissatisfaction  at  what  seemed  to  them  a  lack  of  due 
consideration,  they  took  off  their  rich  cloaks,  all  covered  with  embroidery,  and  sat 
down  on  them  as  cushions.  After  the  banquet  they  rose  up  and  left  these  cloaks 
behind  them.  Some  one  of  the  court  thinking  they  had  forgotten  them,  reminded 
the  Flemish  of  the  rich  garments  they  had  so  carelessly  left ;  whereupon,  Simon 
van  Ertrycke,  the  Burgomaster  of  Bruges,  answered  scornfully,  ' '  We  Flemish  are 
not  wont  to  carry  away  our  cushions  after  dinner ! ' ' 

From  the  year  1519  to  1556  the  Netherlands  were  a  part  of  the  vast 
dominion  of  Charles  I.  of  Spain,  who  became  King  of  Germany,  Naples, 
the  Netherlands,  Spain  and  Portugal,  under  the  title  of  Charles  V.  It- was 
during  this  period  that  the  cities  of  Belgium  reached  the  highest  point  of 
their  prosperity  and  commercial  greatness.  During  the  first  half  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  Antwerp  was  the  commercial  centre  of  the  Western 
World. 

It  was  the  gathering  place  of  the  merchants  and  the  seat  of  money  changers  and 
bankers.  Two  or  three  thousand  ships  were  often  crowded  in  its  harbors  at  one 
time.  It  distributed  the  merchandise  of  the  East  and  West  Indies,  which  it  took 
from  Portugal  and  Spain,  and  the  manifold  wares  of  the  many  manufacturing  towns 
of  Flanders,  Brabant,  Southern  Germany,  to  a  great  extent  and  to  Northern  France. 
At  the  same  time  its  own  looms,  anvils,  tanneries,  glass  works,  dyeing  vats  and 
mechanic  shops  of  various  kinds  were  numerous  and  busy.  .  .  .  Such  was  Ant- 
werp during  the  reign  of  Charles  V.  and  at  the  time  (A.  D.  1555-1556),  when  that 
weary  monarch  gave  up  his  many  crowns  to  his  evil  son  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  and 
went  away  to  a  Spanish  monastery  to  seek  for  rest. ' 

The  chief  source  of  wealth  of  the  Flemish  or  Belgians  was  their 
domestic  industry.  These  countries  being  situated  between  England  and 
the  centre  of  Europe,  their  wares  found  a  ready  and  extensive  market  in 
the  countries  where  manufacturing  at  that  time  was  not  carried  on. 

An  event  occurred  at  this  time  which  had  an  important  bearing  upon 
the  industrial  life,  not  only  of  the  Belgians  and  Dutch,  but  also  of  the 
Eugli.sh.  It  was  under  the  reign  of  Philip  II.,  who  was  King  of  Spain 
from  1556  to  1598,  that  the  Inquisition  was  set  up  and  a  war  of  religious 
persecution  was  carried  on  against  the  Protestants  of  Belgium  and 
Holland.  Protestantism  was  suppressed  throughout  Belgium,  and  the 
Flemish  weavers,  who  were  largely  Protestants,  were  driven  out  and  sought 
refuge  in  Holland  and  England.  This  dealt  to  the  industries  and  cities 
of  Belgium  a  blow  from  which  they  have  never  recovered.  Antwerp 
ceased  to  be  the  commercial  centre  of  the  West  and  Amsterdam  suc- 
ceeded to  its  place.  Belgium  was  conquered  and  subdued  by  Spain.  The 
Dutch  stood  out  against  the  power  of  Spain,  defended  their  religious  insti- 
tutions on  land  and  .sea,  and  finally  won  their  independence. 

The  rise  and  progress  of  the  Dutch  furnish  a  remarkable  instance 
of  the  triumph  of  a  people  over  adverse  circumstances  and  obstacles.     A 

'  Larned'.s  History  for  Ready  Reference,  Vol.  V,  p.  3716. 


WESTERN  EUROPE. 


Cotnmer~ 

""ess  o/  the 
Dutch. 


marshy,  slimy  soil,  made  by  the  alluvial  deposits  of  rivers,  lying  below 
the  level  of  the  ocean  and  subject  to  frequent  inundations  was  converted 
into  gardens,  pastures,  and  brought  to  a  high  state  of  cultivation.  The 
tides  of  the  ocean  were  kept  back  by  means  of  dykes  built  at  great  expense, 
and  through  centuries  of  the  most  incessant  toil  and  hardship.  By  a  system 
of  windmills  water  was  pumped  from  ditches  and  the  soil  drained  and 
re-drained.  Without  stone  or  building  material  the  Dutch  excelled  in 
architecture,  brought  stone  from  distant  countries  and  erected  magnificent 
edifices  and  built  great  cities.  Without  timber  or  any  of  the  materials 
used  in  the  construction  of  a  ship,  they  became  the  greatest  ship  builders 
in  the  world,  and  for  a  time  were  the  absolute  masters  of  the  sea,  and  the 
greatest  naval  and  maritime  power  in  the  world.  Wholly  dependent  on 
other  countries  for  raw  materials,  they  excelled  in  manufacturing.  With- 
out sufficient  arable  land  for  extensive  grain-raising,  their  cities  possessed 
the  greatest  granaries  and  storehouses  for  the  grain  and  food  supplies  of 
other  nations.  Early  subject  to  the  piratical  raids  of  the  Vikings  and 
Norsemen,  they  defended  their  country  and  industries  with  that 
spirit  of  heroism  which  in  later  years  made  them  the  terror  of  the  sea.  It 
is  not  alone  in  industrial  enterprises  that  the  Dutch  won  their  fame.  They 
had  a  love  of  liberty,  a  sense  of  justice  and  a  moral  consciousness  which 
made  them  the  pioneers  of  the  Western  world  in  the  establishment  of  free 
government,  just  laws  and  civil  and  religious  liberty.  They  defended 
these  most  sacred  principles  against  powerful  assailants,  and  upheld  them 
on  fields  of  battle  and  on  the  ocean  against  the  most  powerful  despots  of  the 
times. 

They  maintained  and  defended  civil  and  religious  liberty  under  the 
most  cruel  persecutions  of  Philip  II.  of  Spain  and  Louis  XIV.  of  France. 
They  were  leaders  of  modern  civilization  and  contributed  more  to  set  in 
motion  those  ideas  and  influences  which  have  been  undermining  the 
despotic  powers  and  liberating  the  masses  from  tyranny'  than  any  people 
of  Europe.  They  were  the  first  in  Western  Europe  to  pave  the  way  for 
free  government,  as  they  were  also  the  first  to  recognize  the  dignity  of 
labor  and  the  importance  of  elevating  the  masses  through  industrial  pur- 
suits. It  was  an  old  Dutch  maxim  which  held  that,  "It  is  a  disgrace  not 
to  live  upon  much  less  than  one's  income."  By  great  frugality,  industry 
and  enterprise  they  raised  the  country  from  insignificance  to  the  front  rank 
among  European  nations. 

The  period  between  1580  and  1650  was  one  of  great  commercial  pros- 
perity for  the  Dutch.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  Dutch  republic  became 
the  dominating  commercial  and  maritime  power  of  Western  Europe, 
monopolizing  the  commerce  and  carrying  trade  of  the  world.  The 
bankers  and  merchants  of  Amsterdam  acquired  their  wealth,  and  founded 
in  their  city  the  great  banking  institutions  which  controlled  the  finances 
of  Europe. 


The  Dutch 
East  India 
Company. 


VOMMEUCIM.  I/JSTOUV  TO  1650. 

Und^rthe  influence  of  Henry  "the  Navigator,"  the  Portuguese  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  and  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century  had 
become  great  seamen.  In  1497,  while  exploring  the  western  coast  of 
Africa,  Vasco  De  Gama  sailed  around  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  dis- 
covered the  ocean  route  to  India.  Five  years  before,  Columbus  .seeking 
for  a  shorter  route  between  the  East  and  West,  had  discovered  the  new 
world.  The  Portuguese  immediately  entered  upon  the  Eastern  trade,  and 
by  1542  had  firmly  established  trading  .stations  on  the  coast  of  India,  the 
Island  of  Ceylon,  the  Maldive  Island,  and  Malacca  and  Maliby.  For  forty 
years  or  until  1580,  when  Portugal  was  united  to  vSpain  under  Philip  II., 
the  Portuguese  had  engaged  in  this  trade,  making  Lisbon  the  commercial 
centre  from  which  the  spices  and  products  of  India  were  sold  to  the  Dutch 
for  distribution  among  the  English  and  on  the  Continent.  In  1591  Philip 
II.,  through  his  jealousy  of  the  Dutch,  closed  the  ports  of  Lisbon  and  all 
Spanish  ports  to  their  trading  vessels,  but  this  enterprising  and  undaunted 
people,  ready  to  risk  everything  for  their  fortunes  and  treasures  of  the 
East,  sailed  past  the  port  of  Lisbon  direct  for  the  Portuguese  trading  sta- 
tions on  the  coast. 

In  1595  Cornelius  Hautman,  who  had  formerly  been  in  the  Portuguese 
service,  .set  sail  for  Amsterdam  in  command  of  a  fleet  of  four  ve.s.sels,  and 
made  the  first  voyage  under  the  Dutch  flag  to  the  East  Indies.  He  returned 
in  1597  with  a  rich  cargo  of  spices  and  Indian  wares.  This  was  the 
beginning  of  the  Dutch  East  India  trade.  In  1602  the  East  India  Company 
was  incorporated  with  a  capital  of  6,000,000  guilders.  By  1608  forty- 
three  ves.sels  were  sent  each  year,  trading  stations  were  established  and 
warehouses  and  dwellings  constructed.  The  profits  of  this  trade  were  so 
enormous  that  it  soon  became  a  source  of  great  revenue  to  the  Dutch 
merchants.  The  ships  were  sent  out  fitted  for  war  and  merchandise, 
ready  to  gain  a  foothold  in  the  East  at  all  hazards.  This  afforded 
an  opportunity  to  raid  the  Spanish  commerce.  In  the  space  of  a  few  years 
the  Dutch  had  destroyed  eleven  Spanish  merchant  vessels  and  crippled  and 
made  unserviceable  forty  others. 

The  Dutch,  however,  found  not  only  the  Portuguese  but  the  English 
trading  in  the  East.  A  fierce  struggle  for  the  possession  of  this  trade 
inunediately  arose  between  the  Dutch,  the  Portuguese  and  the  I{ngli.sh. 
In  1613  the  Dutch  seized  the  Island  of  Tymore  and  drove  tlic  Ivnglish  out 
of  Bantam  and  Jakapra.  In  1651  they  took  from  the  Portuguese  Mulacco, 
and  in  1668  Ceylon.  They  had  al.so  gained  a  footing  in  Japan,  and  were 
the  only  people  excepting  the  Chinese  with  whom  the  Japanese  would 
trade.  In  1660  they  took  from  the  Portuguese,  Celebes,  the  last  station, 
and  completely  expelled  them  from  the  East.  In  1621  they  also  attacked 
the  Engli.sh  and  ma.s.sacred  their  settlement  at  Amboyna.  The  Dutch 
finally  gained  exclusive  control  of  the  Ea.stern  Empire  and  held  the  trade 
until  they  were  compelled  to  divide  it  with  the  French  and  the  English. 


1 


WESTERN  EUROPE. 


During  this  time,  the  early  part  of  the  sevenceeiith  century,  they  estab- 
lished colonies  in  the  West  Indies,  Brazil,  Guinea  and  New  Amsterdam. 
They  had  reached  their  ascendancy  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  and  extended  their  conquests  and  trade  in  every  part  of  the 
world.  They  finally  supplanted  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese,  destroyed 
their  navies  and  commerce,  being  aided  in  this  by  the  Engli.sh,  and 
absolutely  dominated  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world.  From  the 
organization  of  the  East  India  Company  in  1602  to  1650,  the  Dutch 
merchants  amassed  immense  fortunes  from  their  Oriental  commerce.  In 
1650  Holland  was  able  to  bear  the  burden  of  paying  the  annual  interest 
of  140,000,000  guilders  on  the  debt  contracted  in  her  war  with  Spain.  In 
i6iotheEast  India  Company  divided  fifty  per  cent  profit  among  its  stock 
holders,  in  1613  thirty-seven  per  cent,  and  in  161 6  sixty-two  and  a  half 
per  cent.  The  Dutch  West  India  Company  was  formed  in  1623  for  the 
purpose  of  trading  in  Central  and  South  America. 

In  1 618  Admiral  Peter  Herr  captured  a  whole  Spanish  fleet  and 
took  from  it  10,000,000  guilders  in  value  of  precious  metals.  The 
Dutch  West  India  Company  was  organized  more  for  making  captures 
of  Spanish  and  Portuguese  vessels  and  plundering  the  coast  of  the  New 
World  than  for  anything  else.  In  1623  this  company  divided  among 
its  stockholders,  twenty-five  per  cent  derived  wholly  from  the  taking  of 
Spanish  vessels.  In  1639  the  Dutch  Admiral  Van  Tromp  defeated  the 
Spanish  and  Portuguese  armada  of  sixty-seven  large  ships,  25,000  sailors 
and  12,000  soldiers.  In  1643  the  charter  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Com- 
pany was  renewed  by  payment  to  its  government  of  1,600,000  guilders  by 
the  company  for  the  monopoly  of  the  Ea.st  India  trade.  The  naval 
power  of  the  Dutch  was  able  at  this  time,  in  1650,  to  destroy  all  rivals 
at  sea. 

The  commercial  supremacy  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  however,  was 
broken  in  its  wars  with  England  in  1652,  1665  and  1672,  wars  waged 
wholly  for  commercial  supremacy.  In  165 1  England  pas.sed  her  famous 
navigation  laws  for  the  purpose  of  crippling  and  destroying  the  Dutch 
commerce  and  building  up  her  own. 

Spain  for  a  time  filled  her  coffers  with  the  precious  metals  drawn 
from  the  mines  of  the  New  World  by  robbing  the  ancient  Mexicans  and 
Peruvians,  but  this  treasure  soon  di.sappeared.  Made  insane  or  .stupefied 
by  the  wealth  thus  acquired  and  failing  to  appreciate  the  advantages  of 
domestic  industries,  Philip  III.  in  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  drove  the  Moors  from  Granada  and  adjacent  provinces,  thus 
depriving  his  realm  of  a  manufacturing  and  trading  class  that  was  adding 
great  .strength,  wealth  and  pro.sperity  to  the  kingdom.  The  population 
of  Spain  was  also  reduced  by  .sending  her  people  off  to  establish  colonies 
in  the  New  World.  The  neglect  of  domestic  productions  and  the  pensecu- 
tion  of  the  industrial  cla.sses,  inflicted  an  injury  upon  Spain  from  which  .she 


'ard/u, 
he  wel/an 

producers. 


'OMMERVIAL  IlHiTDUy   TO  Vi.Vl. 


trade- 
General 
effect  of  this 


has  never  recovered.  The  precious  metals  obtained  from  the  New  World 
were  squandered  in  maintaining  armies  and  conducting  wars,  and  rapidly 
slipped  into  the  pockets  of  the  Dutch,  in  the  purchase  of  wares  which 
might  have  been  produced  in  Spain. 

Conclusions. 

In  the  brief  review  of  the  trade  and  industries  of  nations  above  given 
some  significant  facts  are  disclosed,  which  may  be  of  benefit  in  arriving 
at  the  causes  which  have  resulted  in  the  industrial  development  of  nations 
in  recent  times.  One  fact  is  certainly  worthy  of  notice.  With  the  bare 
exception  of  the  Venetians  and  possibly  of  other  Italian  cities,  no  regu- 
lations were  imposed  by  governments  to  induce  the  investment  of  capital 
in  home  industries  and  to  encourage  domestic  producers  in  such 
pursuits.  So  far  as  governmental  regulations  and  aid  are  concerned, 
it  was  a  period  of  free  trade.  The  lack  of  progress  and  of  interest 
in  industrial  pursuits,  which  prevailed  throughout  the  world  for  so 
many  centuries,  continued  as  long  as  govfernmental  aid  and  stimulus 
were  withheld  from  the  people.  In  this  respect,  it  was  a  period  of  inac- 
tion, indifference  and  the  operation  of  the  natural  law  of  the  free  traders. 
People  were  left  to  take  their  own  course  and  go  their  own  way.  That 
barbarous  struggle  for  existence,  which  is  the  fundamental  basis  of  free 
trade,  was  carried  on  through  all  the  centuries  before  the  Christian  era, 
through  the  Dark  Ages  and  down  to  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, without  industrial  advancement  or  material  ptogress,  among  the 
masses.  The  foreign  trade  and  commerce  engaged  in  was  that  class  so 
lauded  by  English  economists  of  buying  in  one  countrj^  to  sell  in  another, 
or  what  they  call  an  exchange  of  natural  products.  For  centurj-  after 
century  certain  products  of  India  were  purchased  by  other  nations, 
without  its  ever  dawning  upon  them  that  they  could  make  the  same 
thing  themselves.  During  all  this  period,  the  small  amount  of  com- 
merce or  exchange  of  products  which  took  place,  was  confined  chiefly  to 
seaport  cities.  While  this  contributed  to  the  power  and  wealth  of  certain 
nations,  the  ultimate  results  proved  that  had  the  same  energy  been 
exerted  in  the  development  of  native  resources,  and  in  the  education 
and  employment  of  the  masses  in  the  arts  of  industry,  a  more  permanent 
and  enduring  foundation  would  have  been  laid  for  national  defence  and 
independence.  This  fact,  however,  will  be  more  prominent  when  in 
later  chapters  the  reader  will  be  able  to  contrast  these  conditions  with  the 
connnercial  activity  and  progress  which  followed  the  adoption  of  protec- 
tive tariffs  and  the  especial  encouragement  given  by  the  nations  of 
Western  Europe  to  agriculture  and  manufacturing,  from  the  middle  of  the 
seventeenth  century  to  the  present  time. 

Advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  free  trade,  persistently  refer  to  "the 
wise  and  liberal  policy,"  as  they  call  it,  of  Holland  and  Belgium,  as  an 


WESTERN  EUROPE. 


example  of  the  benefits  of  the  system  of  free  trade.  While  it  is  a  fact 
that  the  Flemish  and  Dutch  established  and  built  up  their  factories  with- 
out imposing  duties  or  prohibitions  on  imports,  yet  the  circumstances 
under  which  this  was  accomplished  disclose  the  fact  that  they  needed  no 
protection.  The  causes  which  led  the  Dutch  to  put  to  sea,  become  fisher- 
men and  engage  in  the  carrj-ing  trade,  are  perfectly  apparent.  Occupying 
a  country  destitute  of  domestic  resources,  a  soil  which  could  not  be 
cultivated,  except  under  great  disadvantages;  with  a  coast  swarming 
with  herring  and  with  splendid  fishing  grounds  easily  within  reach,  they 
naturally  and  necessarily  became  fishermen  and  mariners,  and  looked  to 
the  ocean  as  their  chief  means  of  subsistence.  What  particular  cause 
prompted  the  Flemings  so  many  centuries  before  their  neighbors  to 
engage  in  manufacture  to  the  extent  to  which  they  did,  does  not  appear. 
But  centuries  before  manufacturing  was  thought  of  in  England,  and 
before  it  was  carried  on  to  any  extent  in  France  or  Germany,  the  Flemish 
weavers  became  famous,  and  their  woolens  and  linens  were  sold  at  all  the 
fairs  and  markets  of  England  and  Western  Europe. 

•From  the  twelfth  to  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  centurj',  the  Flem- 
ish and  Dutch  manufacturers  were  absolutely  without  competition.  No 
fabrics  similar  to  those  made  in  their  own  looms  were  shipped  into  their 
country,  in  competition  with  their  domestic  productions;  hence,  there 
was  no  necessity  for  protective  duties.  The  policy  of  admitting  free  of 
duty  wool,  raw  silks  and  other  raw  materials,  which  they  were  compelled 
to  buy  in  other  countries,  is  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  protection 
as  practiced  by  the  United  States  and  all  other  countries  which  believe  in 
its  principles.  What  the  Flemish  and  Dutch  did  in  this  respect,  at  a  time 
when  they  held  a  monopoly  of  these  fabrics  and  were  entirely  independ 
ent  of  the  injurious  effects  of  free  competition,  proves  nothing.  The 
writers  referred  to  do  not  state  all  the  facts.  They  conceal  or  fail 
to  mention,  the  policy  which  Holland  and  Belgium  adopted  in  later 
years,  when  subjected  to  competition  by  English  and  French  manufactu- 
rers. During  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  centurj-,  before  the  Napo- 
leonic wars, England  began  sending  her  wares  into  Belgium  and  Holland. 
Belgium  reduced  by  free  trade  became  what  was  known  as  the  "cock  pit  of 
Europe."  The  industries  of  Holland  suffered  materially,  and  at  the  close 
of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  when  Holland  and  Belgium  were  united,  they 
were  compelled,  in  order  to  shield  their  industries  from  the  ruinous  com- 
petition of  English  goods,  to  resort  to  a  protective  tariff.  From  the 
earliest  time,  the  Dutch  government  gave  the  greatest  encouragement  to 
ship  building,  and  offered  the  strongest  inducements  to  stimulate  foreign 
trade.  The  Dutch  merchants  who  organized  the  East  India  Company 
and  secured  to  Holland  her  most  valuable  possessions,  were  induced  to 
embark  in  the  enterprise  by  being  given,  under  a  royal  charter,  a 
monopoly  of  the  trade. 


Change  of 
policy  when 
competition 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1650. 


Difffteid 

of'vene- 

fachirers- 
Effect  of 
protection. 


exper. 
o/vc. 


%nd  the 
Nether- 


The  situation  of  the  Venetians  was  entirely  different  from  that  of  the 
Dutch  and  Flemish.  They  attempted  to  build  up  manufactures  of  fine 
cotton  and  silk  fabrics,  of  glass,  saddlerj',  dye  stuffs,  armor,  weapons, 
etc.,  requiring  great  skill  and  ta.ste,'  in  imitation  of,  and  in  direct  conij)!.- 
tition  with,  Damascus  and  the  old  manufacturing  centres  of  the  East. 
Their  merchants  engaged  in  the  Ea,stern  trade  were  distributing  its  wares 
among  the  people  of  Western  Europe.  The  manufactures  of  Venice  were 
established,  her  artisans  were  trained  and  their  skill  was  acquired  in 
the  production  of  competing  articles,  in  other  words,  under  conditions 
which  necessitated  the  protection  of  the  home  producer  against  foreign 
rivals.  Venice  excluded  those  Eastern  products  from  her  home  market 
to  make  room  for  her  own  artisans  and  manufacturers.  That  this  policy 
was  wise  is  attested  by  the  wealth  and  prosperity  acquired  by  the  Vene- 
tians through  these  industries.  The  Dutch  and  Flemish  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  Venetians  on  the  other,  afford  an  illustration  of  those  conditions 
which  determine  the  economic  policy  of  a  nation.  It  would  have  been 
unwise  for  the  Venetians  to  have  neglected  manufactures  and  to  have  dealt 
wholly  in  foreign  wares,  to  build  up  simply  a  one-.sided  carrying  trade.  It 
would  have  been  the  height  of  folly,  as  it  was  unnecessary',  for  the  Dutch 
and  Flemish  to  adopt  regulations  for  the  exclusion  of  competing  imports 
when  none  were  offered.  It  was  time  for  them  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  protection,  when  the  necessity  for  it  arose.  The  Venetians  in 
the  south  of  Europe,  as  well  as  the  Dutch  and  Flemish  in  the  north,  owe 
their  prosperity,  not  to  one  particular  class  of  trade,  but  to  all  classes,  in 
which  they  engaged.  Their  carrying  trade,  their  foreign  trade  for  home 
consumption,  their  domestic  industries,  all  combined,  rounded  out  their 
industrial  life,  gave  them  larger  sources  of  wealth  and  pro.sperity  than 
they  would  have  possessed  by  narrowing  in  any  direction  the  field  of  their 
enterprises.  There  is  no  question  that  both  the  Dutch  and  Venetians 
engaged  more  largely  in  the  carrying  trade  than  they  would  have  done, 
f  they  had  pos.sessed  large  regions  of  fertile  soil  suited  to  agri- 
culture. If  any  lesson  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  industrial  life  of  these 
people,  it  proves  the  wisdom  of  that  system  which  develops  domestic 
resources,  gives  employment  to  labor  and  keeps  the  money  and 
earnings  of  a  people  at  home  to  build  up  their  cities,  constantly 
enhancing  their  wealth,  power  and  independence.  When  the  foreign 
trade  of  the  Dutch  had  been  crippled  and  partially  destroyed  by  the 
English,  as  their  foreign  markets  were  lessened  by  the  growth  of 
the  industries  of  France,  Germany  and  England,  their  attention 
was  turned  toward  a  better  cultivation  of  the  .soil  and  a  greater 
reliance  on  domestic  production  for  their  support  and  prosperity-. 
The  manufacturing  centres  created  by  the  Italians  remained  to 
furnish  employment  for  their  artisans,  means  of  investment  for  their 
merchants  and  a  basis  of   business  enterprises  for  centuries  after  the 


WESTERN  EUROPE. 


foreign  commerce  and  carrying  trade  of   the    Italian    cities   had    been 
destroyed. 

If  the  commercial  and  industrial  history  of  the  world  up  to  the  close 
of  the  sixteenth  century  teaches  anything,  it  is  the  advantages  of  domes- 
tic production  and  that  the  permanent  prosperity  of  nations  has  always 
rested  on  those  pursuits  which  furnish  employment  to  people  and  the 
investment  of  capital  at  home.  The  encouragement  of  home  production 
has  stimulated  a  greater  degree  of  thrift  and  enterprise  and  made  the 
people  more  patriotic.  Up  to  the  time  when  the  Venetians  established 
their  manufactures  it  was  not  thought  by  any  people  that  they  could 
possibly  make  what  they  had  been  buying  in  other  countries,  tt  was  not 
until  the  people  of  Western  Europe  conceived  the  idea  that  they  could 
make  their  own  clothing  and  implements,  that  the  foundations  were  laid 
for  that  vast  manufacturing  .system  which  has  contributed  so  largely  to 
the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  their  people.  As  long  as  Western  Europe 
relied  upon  the  East  for  manufactured  articles,  there  was  no  progress  or 
improvement.  It  was  not  until  England,  France,  Germany,  Switzer- 
land and  the  whole  of  Western  Europe,  in  the  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries,  imitated  the  example  which  had  been  set  by  Venice 
and  Flanders,  and  turned  the  attention  of  their  own  people  to  manu- 
facturing, that  their  material  progress  and  prosperity  began.  As  long 
as  they  continued  to  buy  their  wares  of  the  Flemi.sh  and  the  Vene- 
tians, they  remained  poor.  From  this  time  dates  the  foundation  of 
the  greatness  of  the  nations  of  modern  times.  It  has  been  by  encour- 
aging the  cultivation  of  the  soil  by  special  inducements  offered  to 
the  investment  of  capital  in  manufacturing  and  by  stimulating  .ship 
building  and  foreign  trade  through  governmental  regulations,  especially 
adopted  by  these  nations  that  their  commercial  greatness  has  been 
assured.  The  people  of  France  were  wearing  the  woolen  clothing  made 
by  the  Flemish  and  did  not  estaljlish  woolen  factories  until  Robais, 
a  Hollander,  was  invited  to  France  and  induced  to  e.stablish  a  woolen 
factory  at  Abbeville,  under  the  protection  of  the  government.  The 
people  of  England  had  .shipped  their  wool  to  Flanders  where  it  was  carded, 
dyed,  made  into  cloth  and  returned  to  them  to  clothe  their  people.  They 
did  not  establish  woolen  factories  until  Edward  III.  invited  John  Kemp, 
with  his  weavers  into  England  to  set  up  their  indu.stry,  prohibited  the 
export  of  wool  and  gave  the  woolen  manufacturers  the  protection  of  the 
government.  The  whole  history  of  the  world  up  to  this  time  proves  that 
the  people  left  to  themselves  will  not  abandon  old  pur.suits,  embark  in 
new  enterprises  and  carrj'  on  those  indu.stries  suited  and  beneficial  to  the 
State,  excepting  under  the  direction  and  encouragement  of  the  govern- 
ment. Tho.se  nations  which  have  continued  under  the  policy  of  free 
trade  and  in  which  the  people  have  been  left  to  take  their  own  course, 
have  made  little  or  no  improvements  in   industrial  pursuits.     They  are 

3 


COMMERCIAL  HISTORY  TO  1050. 


just  where  the}-  were  centuries  ago.  Onl>-  those  nations  which  have 
received  protection  and  encouragement  from  their  governments,  which 
have  engaged  in  manufacturing  and  de\-eloped  most  fully  domestic 
industries,  have  become  the  greatest  commercial  nations. 


I 


PART  11. 
EARLY  ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Social  and  Industrial  Conditions  Prior  to  the  Fourteenth 
Century. 
England  was  purely  an  agricultural  country  until  the  middle  of  the 
fourteenth  century  when  steps  were  taken  toward  establishing  manufac- 
tures and  developing  a  system  of  diversified  industries.  The  early 
history  of  England  is  necessarily  of  but  little  interest  and  throws  but 
little  light  upon  the  question  under  consideration.  The  older  histories 
of  the  country  are  devoted  to  accounts  of  the  military  achievements 
and  doings  of  kings  and  rulers  rather  than  to  an  inquiry  into  the 
conditions  and  life  of  the  people.  But  in  recent  years  much  light  has 
been  thrown  by  very  able  and  industrious  English  writers  upon  the  social 
conditions,  laws  and  customs  of  the  people  during  a  period  which  until 
lately  had  not  been  accessible  to  the  general  public.  Those  who  are 
denied  access  to  the  original  documents  and  records  from  which  these 
writers  have  gathered  the  facts  from  which  they  have  constructed  their 
histories  are  not,  however,  without  means  and  materials  of  the  most 
reliable  and  authentic  character  from  which  to  draw  conclusions  rela- 
tive to  these  subjects.  The  world  can  never  pay  the  debt  it  owes, 
or  accord  too  high  a  recognition  to  Professor  W.  Cunningham,  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  for  the  service  he  has  rendered  in  this 
respect,  in  writing  of  the  industrial  legislation  of  England  prior  to  the 
year  1800.  The  writer  must  at  the  outset,  make  an  especial  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  aid  which  he  has  received  from  the  efforts  of  this  dis- 
tinguished author,  although  the  material  presented  is  also  gathered  from 
many  other  sources  as  will  appear  from  the  citations  made. 

A  brief  outline  of  the  condition  of  the  English  people  during  this 
early  period  becomes  important  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  causes 
which  contributed  to  the  delay  on  the  part  of  England  in  establishing 
manufactures  and  engaging  in  commercial  undertakings.  It  will  appear 
that  it  was  the  result  of  erroneous  economic  ideas.  True  appreciation  of  the 
importance  of  diversified  industries  to  a  nation  did  not  arise  until  England 
had  been  twice  invaded  and  overpowered  by  foreigners,  and  until  her 
weak  and  defenceless  condition  became  apparent  by  the  contrast  afforded 
(35) 


the  Engliik 
people. 


EARLY  ENGLAND. 


bj'  the  wealth  and  power  of  her  neighbors  across  the  channel,  who  by  a 
system  of  manufacturing  and  shipping  had  become  centuries  in  advance 
of  the  English,  and  were  famous  for  their  opulence  and  strength. 

From  the  first  to  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  the  island  of 
Britain  was  a  province  of  the  Roman  Empire.  During  this  period  it  was 
spoken  of  by  Eatin  writers  as  a  rich  agricultural  region.  It  was  invaded 
and  conquered  in  the  fifth  century  by  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  held  in 
independent  kingdoms  till  united  under  Egbert  of  Wessex  in  827.  Succes- 
sive Anglo-Saxon  monarchs  continued  to  govern  the  country  until  the 
year  1013,  when  it  was  conquered  by  the  Danes.  Canute  ascended  the 
throne  and  the  country  again  passed  under  the  rule  of  foreigners.  At  the 
time  of  the  Danish  invasion,  a  sy.stem  bordering  closely  on  feudalism  had 
become  so  universal  that  but  little  change  in  the  form  of  government  was 
experienced.  The  feudal  system  was  established  in  all  its  vigor  in  1066, 
when  the  country  was  again  invaded  and  conquered.  At  this  time,  at 
the  head  of  a  powerful  army,  William,  of  Normandy,  defeated  King 
Harold  at  the  great  battle  of  Hastings  and  made  him.self  ma.ster  of  the 
country. 

The  Anglo-Saxons  brought  with  them  from  Northern  Germany 
democratic  in.stitutions.  They  lived  in  tribes,  elected  their  chief  by 
popular  vote  and  managed  their  own  affairs.  Either  by  kinship  or 
social  ties,  thej'  settled  in  groups  or  communities,  owning  in  common 
and  occupying  a  portion  of  territory  which  was  separated  from  the 
land  of  similiar  communities  by  a  boundary  line  called  a  "mark." 
The  land  within  this  geographical  division  formed  the  Anglo-Saxon 
mark,  in  Norman  times  the  English  manor  and  later  the  English 
parish  or  town.ship.  These  German  landowners  were  political  equals 
and  known  as  English  freemen.  The  affairs  of  the  community  wert 
governed  by  a  council,  in  which  each  markman  or  freeman  had  an 
equal  voice.  "The actual  sovereignty,"  .says  Greene,  "within  the  settle- 
ment rested  in  the  bodies  of  its  freemen."  The  land  within  the  "mark" 
was  divided  into  forest,  pasture  and  arable  land.  Each  freeman  had  a 
strip  of  land  to  cultivate,  could  pasture  his  cattle  on  the  common  and 
take  wood  from  the  forest. 

The  Anglo-Saxon  and  Danish  wars  had  brought  about  a  complete 
social  revolution.  The  people  had  lost  their  ownership  of  land  and  the 
right  to  participate  in  the  election  of  their  chief.  The  old  nobility  of 
blood  had  pa.ssedaway,  and  a  militar}' nobility,  composed  of  those  warriors 
who  had  .served  the  king,  became  vested  with  authority.  Greene  refers 
to  this  transformation  in  the  following  language: 

The  ravages  and  the  long  insecurity  of  the  Danish  wars  aided  to  drive  the  free 
farmer  to  seek  protection  from  the  Thegns  (military  nobles).  His  freehold  wa,"; 
surrendered  to  be  received  back  as  a  fief,  laden  with  service  to  his  lord.  Gradually 
the  lordless  man  became  a  sort  of  outlaw  in  the  realm.     The  free  churl  (freemen) 


SOCIAL  AND  IXDOiTKIAL  VOyDmONS. 

sank  to  villein  (serf),  and  with  his  personal  freedom  went  his  share  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  state.  The  great  mass  of  the  people  had  lost  their  right  of  participa- 
tion in  the  government  and  had  become  reduced  to  a  condition  but  little  better 
than  slavery.  The  manorial  system,  which  formed  the  basis  upon  which  feudalism 
was  constructed,  had  been  fully  established.  The  word  manor  is  a  Norman  name 
for  a  Saxon  township  or  community,  and  it  differed  from  the  mark  in  this;  the 
mark  was  a  group  of  householders  organized  and  governed  on  a  common  democratic 
basis,  while  in  the  manor  we  find  an  organization  and  government  whereby  a  group 
of  tenants  acknowledged  the   superior  position   and  authority  of    the    lord  of   the 

manor The   great    feature  of  the    manor  was,   that  it  was  subject  to  a 

lord  who  owned  absolutely  a  certain  portion  of  the  land  therein  and  had  rights  of 
rent  (paid  in  service  or  food  or  money  or  all  three),  over  the  rest  of  the  land.' 

The  manor,  like  the  mark,  was  divided  into  pasture,  forest  and  arable 
land,  but  the  rights  of  the  people  had  changed.  Persons  taken  in  war 
were  made  slaves.  The  slave  class  had  greatly  increased.  Many  freemen 
had  sunk  even  below  the  position  of  serfs,  had  lost  all  their  rights, 
and  been  reduced  to  slaverj'.  Even  before  the  Norman  Conquest, 
the  country  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  merciless  and  arrogant 
aristocracy,  owing  no  allegiance  to  the  people,  respecting  only  the 
authority  of  the  king.  The  principal  change  wrought  by  lIi;  conquest 
was  the  substitution  of  the  Norman  king  and  his  followers  for  the  English 
nobility  and  old  lords  of  the  manors. 

At  the  close  of  the  conquest  there  were  9250  manors  in  England. 
The  English  nobility  had  either  fallen  in  battle  or  fled  the  country, 
although  in  some  instances  they  f  urrendered  their  holdings  under  a  com- 
promise with  the  new  authority.  All  the  lands,  however,  were  confiscated 
by  King  William,  and  with  few  exceptions  were  parceled  out  among  his 
followers.  "Two  hundred  manors  in  Kent,  and  an  equal  number  in 
Chester,  rewarded  his  brother  Odo.  Grants,  almost  as  large,  fell 
to  his  ministers,  Fitz  Osborne  and  Montgomery,  and  the  barons  like 
the  Mowbrays,  Warrens  and  Clairs. "  Every  soldier  was  given  a 
piece  of  land  as  a  reward  for  his  services.  The  king  held  large  tracts 
in  person,  the  manors  thereon  being  worked  by  bailiffs  appointed  by 
the  king.  The  great  baron  owning  many  manors,  was  known  as  the 
tenant  in  chief.  While  he  occupied  a  manor  he  sublet  others  to  those 
who  became  "tenants  in  mesne."  These  tenants  of  the  king  con- 
stituted the  barons,  lords  and  nobility  of  the  realm.  The  land  was 
called  a  fief  and  the  title  remained  in  the  king,  the  tenant  holding  it 
under  an  agreement  to  render  military  service  and  aid  in  sustaining  the 
authority  of  the  monarch.  A  sub-tenant  was  bound  by  the  same  condi- 
tions of  service  to  his  lord,  and  also  to  the  king.  The  creation  of  this 
relation  under  which  the  noble  became  vested  with  his  estate,  was  sur- 
rounded with  great  pomp  and  ceremony.  "Laying  aside  his  arms,  with 
bared  head  and  placing  his  hands  between  those  of  his  lord,  he  took  the 

'  History  of  the  English  People,  p.  90. 


EARLY  ENGLAND. 


following  oaths:  'Here,  my  lord,  I  become  liegeman  of  3'ours  for  life  and 
limb  and  earthly  regard,  and  1  will  keep  faith  and  loyalty  to  you  for  life 
and  death,  God  help  me.'  The  kiss  of  his  lord  invested  him  with  the 
land  or  fief,  to  descend  to  him  and  his  heirs  forever."  The  people  living 
on  the  manor  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  were  undisturbed.  They  became 
bondsmen  of  the  new  nobility,  and  continued  as  before  to  obey  their  lord 
and  render  him  service.  In  every  manor  was  the  manor  house  occupied 
by  the  lord  or  his  bailiff.  In  this  buildingwas  held  the  baron's  court  and 
the  leet  court.  The  church,  the  house  of  the  priest  and  other  buildings 
for  the  servants  and  retainers  of  the  lord  surrounded  the  manorial  mansion. 
The  great  mass  of  the  people  living  on  these  manors  were  divided  as 
recorded  in  the  Domesday  book,  the  census  taken  by  the  Conqueror,  as 
follows : 

First,  the  villeins,  who  formed  38  per  cent  of  the  whole  population  and  who  held 
thirty  acres  of  arable  land  apiece ;  second,  below  the  villeins  came  the  cotters  or 
bordars,  a  distinct  class  below  the  former,  who  probably  held  from  five  to  ten  acres 
of  land  and  a  cottage,  and  did  not  even  possess  a  plow,  much  less  a  team  of  oxen 
apiece,  and  had  to  combine  among  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  plowing.  They 
formed  32  per  cent  of  the  population.  Finally  came  the  slaves,  who  formed  only  9 
per  cent  of  the  population. ' 

The  villeins,  cotters  and  slaves  were  all  bound  to  the  soil  and  owed 
allegiance  to  the  lord  of  the  manor.  They  were  incapable  of  holding 
property  in  their  own  right,  could  be  sold  as  chattels  and  transferred  with 
the  manor.  If  they  left  the  manor  they  could  be  reclaimed  by  their  lord 
and  compelled  to  return.  The  lord  had  power  to  cast  them  in  prison, 
could  beat  and  chastise  them  as  he  liked,  yet  the  villeins  and  cotters,  as 
fixtures  upon  the  lord's  estate,  were  recognized  as  having  certain  rights. 
Each  had  the  right  to  live  upon  his  particular  piece  of  land,  to  pasture 
his  cattle  upon  the  common  or  waste  and  to  take  fuel  and  timber  from 
the  woods. 

Free  tenants  constituted  a  separate  class  having  certain  rights  superior 
to  the  villeins.  They  occupied  holdings  for  which  they  paid  a  fixed  rent, 
were  not  bound  to  the  soil  but  could  transfer  their  right  to  the  land  and 
go  where  they  pleased;  but  they  were  subject,  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
lord  of  the  manor,  and  were  also  obliged  to  perform  military  service, 
which  was  not  required  of  the  villein.  The  condition  of  the  people  is 
disclosed  by  the  fact  that  at  this  time  the  free  tenants  constituted  only  four 
per  cent  of  the  entire  population. 

Many  of  the  boroughs  and  towns  of  England  had  their  beginning  in 
a  cluster  of  houses  which  grew  up  about  the  manorial  mansion, and  finally 
became  trading  centres  and  places  in  which  the  nobility  congregated  and 
resided.  They  were  all,  however,  dominated  and  governed  by  the  feudal 
system  and   controlled  and    managed  by  lords,   barons  and    kings  and 

'  Gibbin's  Industrial  History  of  Eugland,  pp.  n-i3- 


SOCIAL  AND  INDUSTRIAL  CONDITIONS. 


subject  to  the  same  arbitrary  exactions  and  restrictions,  as  the  rural' popu- 
lation. As  they  grew  in  importance,  becoming  centres  of  trade,  the  number 
of  free  tenants  increased,  land  became  divided  into  smaller  parcels  and 
freeholders  became  more  numerous.  As  in  the  rural  districts,  it  was  the 
freeholders  of  the  towns  and  boroughs  only,  who  held  the  right  to  partici- 
pate in  their  government.  During  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries, 
the  English  nobility  was  seized  with  the  religious  zeal  of  the  age.  Kings 
and  barons  joined  in  the  great  crusades  to  drive  the  infidels  from  the  Holy 
Land.  Armies  were  equipped  for  these  long  and  perilous  campaigns 
across  the  Continent,  to  fight  the  battles  of  the  cross.  Royal  treasuries 
were  exhausted,  manors  mortgaged,  and  every  exertion  was  made  by  the 
nobility  and  kings  to  raise  funds  to  carry  on  the  expensive  expeditions. 
That  the  Christian  religion  received  a  great  impetus  from  these  move- 
ments there  can  be  no  question.  These  wars  were  a  great  civilizing 
agency.  Trade  and  commerce  were  expanded  by  developing  in  the 
nobility  of  the  West  a  taste  for  Eastern  luxuries  and  forming  new  modes 
of  living.  The  people  of  the  West  imbibed  the  learning  of  the  East,  and 
a  great  intellectual  revival  followed.  The  free  citizens,  the  trading  classes, 
improved  the  opportunity  by  furnishing  means  to  the  crusaders.  They 
obtained  charters  for  their  cities  and  boroughs,  and  secured  municipal 
rights  and  privileges,  which  laid  the  foundation  of  their  future  political 
and  commercial  importance.  "Portsmouth  and  Norwich  gained  their 
charters  by  paying  part  of  Richard  I.'s  ransom  (1194).  Again  Rye  and 
Winchelsea  gained  theirs,  by  supplying  the  same  king  (i  191)  with  two 
ships  for  one  of  his  crusaders."  Many  other  cities  and  boroughs  by 
advancing  money  to  fit  out  these  expeditions  or  to  pay  off  the  debts  of  the 
barons,  secured  privileges  and  advantages  which  contributed  largely  to 
their  growth  and  independence.  Among  these  privileges  were  the  right 
to  pay  a  fixed  sum  in  taxes  and  to  collect  it  themselves ;  the  right  to  elect 
a  mayor  and  to  pass  ordinances  and  rules  for  the  regulation  of  their  own 
affairs.  It  was  through  the  freedom  of  the  cities,  that  there  arose  a  body 
of  English  freemen,  whose  political  rights  were  not  connected  with,  or 
dependent  upon,  the  will  of  the  king  or  nobility;  whose  interests  ulti- 
mately became  centred  in  trade  and  commerce.  Under  the  great  advant- 
age of  combination,  community  of  interest,  and  that  contact  with  their 
fellows  which  tends  to  sharpen  and  broaden  the  intellectual  faculties,  they 
became  progressive,  enterprising  and  ambitious  to  acquire  wealth  and 
engage  in  trade.  It  is  in  the  cities  and  among  this  industrial  class,  that 
we  find  the  first  evidences  of  improvement  in  the  social  condition, 
material  welfare  and  enlargement  of  the  rights,  liberties  and  privileges  of 
the  masses.  Their  growth  was  slow,  the  whole  country  being  under  the 
blight  of  tyranny,  excessive  poverty,  ignorance  and  degradation,  and  it 
was  only  through  centuries  of  slow  development  that  their  conditions  were 
improved.     Feudalism  held  a  monopoly  of  the  soil,  the  first  and  at  that 


Effect 
ofthe 
crusades. 


EARLY  ENGLAND. 


time  the  onlj'  means  of  subsistence;  and  as  long  as  the  people  were  coni- 
pelled  to  depend  upon  their  military-  masters  for  food  and  clothing  or  the 
means  by  which  they  were  obtained,  they  were  powerless  to  throw  off  the 
condition  of  bondage. 

We  have  now  very  briefly  touched  upon  the  form  of  government, 
system  of  land  tenures,  the  incipient  stage  in  the  growth  of  cities  and 
boroughs  and  the  enslaved  condition  of  the  great  body  of  the  people, 
up  to  the  fourteenth  century.  It  was  not  until  the  middle  of  the 
latter  century  that  a  change  of  policy  was  entered  upon,  under  which 
means  of  employment  were  opened  up,  independent  of  the  landed  aristoc- 
racy. The  rights,  privileges  and  prosperity  of  the  nobility  only  were 
deemed  worthy  of  consideration.  Kings  and  nobles  were  everything; 
the  masses  of  the  people  were  as  nothing.  Feudali.sm  was  a  military 
despotism.  The  degraded  and  barbarous  condition  of  the  nobility  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  is  described  by  Professor  Cunningham,  as  follows: 

The  great  landowner  was  frequently  on  the  move  from  one  manor  to  another, 
and  the  practice  of  making  a  brief  sojourn  on  each  estate  continued  long  after  the 
commutation  of  food  rents  for  money  payments  had  rendered  .such  a  course  unnec- 
essary'. This  may  to  some  extent  account  for  the  curious  lack  of  comfort,  to  which 
rich  men  of  Norman  and  Angevin  times  submitted.  They  and  their  retinues  would 
be  sheltered  in  a  large  hall,  with  one  private  chamber — the  solar — at  the  end. 
There  was  little  or  no  furniture,  as  the  rough  tables  on  trestles  and  benches  brought 
out  for  meals  were  cleared  away,  when  the  company  settled  themselves  to  sleep  on 
the  straw  with  which  the  unboarded  floor  was  littered.  A  lack  of  knives  and  forks, 
of  glass  and  china,  rendered  inevitable  habits  of  drinking  and  eating  which  are 
inconsistent  with  our  notions  of  refinement;  while  the  debris  of  the  banquet  was 
discussed  by  the  dogs  on  the  floor,  and  was  finally  removed  when  a  great  occasion 
required  that  the  hall  should  be  strewed  with  fresh  straw.  When  the  food  which 
could  be  conveniently  stored  in  one  centre,  began  to  give  out,  the  cavalcade  would 
move  on  to  another  estate,  each  of  which  was  separately  managed,  and  each  of 
which  would  afford  subsistence  for  a  longer  or  shorter  period  of  residence. ' 

It  may  be  suggested  that  there  could  not  have  been  much  left  on  the 
manor  for  the  villeins  and  cotters  after  the.se  hungrj-  lords  and  their  dogs 
had  left.  Common  people  must  have  lived  in  a  condition  of  most  revolt- 
ing misery  and  degradation. 

Between  the  nobility  and  king  stood  the  free  tenants.  They  could 
hold  property,  engage  in  business,  sit  on  jurj',  sue  for  their  rights  and, 
after  the  "Magna  Charta,"  (1215)  could  not  be  arrested,  imprisoned  or 
deprived  of  their  property,  excepting  by  due  process  of  law.  It  was  by  the 
increase  of  this  class  that  civil  and  religious  liberty  was  secured  and  that 
body  of  English  freemen  arose  which  ultimately  controlled  the  destinies, 
morals,  civilization  and  commercial  policy  of  the  people. 

It  is  only  necessary  here  to  suggest  some  of  the  first  stages  in  the 
gradual  emancipation  of  the  mas.ses,  from  the  tyrannical  domination  of 
kings  and  nobles.     As  the  common  law  of  England  developed,  and  customs 

>  Outline  of  English  Industrial  History,  p.  31. 


J 


SOCIAL  AND  INDUSTRIAL 


and  statutes  for  the  establishment  of  individual  rights  and  for  the  promo- 
tion of  justice  were  more  and  more  recognized  and  humanely  interpreted 
by  the  courts,  a  change  from  the  hard  conditions  of  feudalism  toward 
representative  government,  began  to  be  effected.  The  beginning,  how- 
ever, of  the  increase  of  the  power  of  the  people,  through  the  action  of 
parliament  is  traceable  to  an  improvement  in  their  material  welfare  which 
grew  with,  and  accompanied  the  rise  and  development  of  the  commercial 
and  trading  classes.  As  new  means  of  employment  were  opened,  as 
industries  became  established,  business  increased,  the  incomes  of  the 
people  were  enlarged,  they  became  less  dependent  on  the  ruling  classes, 
and  the  growth  of  free  government  was  made  possible.  The  inde- 
pendence thus  brought  about  enabled  the  commercial  classes  to  obtain 
recognition,  and  to  demand  and  enforce  rights  and  privileges  which 
they  were  powerless  to  insist  upon  under  former  conditions. 

Without  specific  parliamentary  enactments  it  became  the  practice  of 
the  courts  to  recognize  certain  customs  and  usages  as  conferring  upon 
bondsmen  the  rights  of  freemen,  and  as  being  evidence  of  freemanship 

1.  An  illegitimate  born  in  villeinage,  having  no  inheritable  blood,  could  not 
inherit  the  conditions  of  the  villeinage. 

2.  A  villein  remaining  unclaimed  for  a  year  and  a  day,  in  any  privileged  town, 
was  freed  from  his  villeinage. 

3.  The  lord  might  at  any  time  enfranchise  his  villein. 

4.  There  were  many  acts  of  the  lord  from  which  the  law  itself  would  infer 
enfranchisement,  whether  designed  or  not.  These  embraced  all  of  those  acts  by 
which  the  lord  treated  a  villein  as  a  freeman,  such  as  ( i )  vesting  in  him  ownership 
of  land;  (2)  accepting  from  him  the  feudal  solemnity  of  homage;  (3)  by  entering 
into  an  obligation  under  seal  with  him;  (4)  by  pleading  with  him  in  an  ordinary 
action. ' 

Although  disturbed  by  foreign  wars  and  internal  strifes,  constantly 
drained  by  excessive  taxation,  with  kingcraft  absolute,  and  many  other 
causes  operating  to  hinder  the  growth  of  industrial  life,  there  came  a 
revolt,  first  from  the  merchants  of  London  and  next  from  those  who 
desired  to  set  up  industries  against  that  free  trade  policy  which  favored 
strangers  to  the  exclusion  of  Englishmen.  This  revolt  was  born  of  the 
spirit  of  protection,  enterprise  and  progress.  As  it  was  fostered  and 
given  a  chance  to  develop,  improvement  came  to  the  masses.  It  was  this 
spirit  which  laid  the  foundation  for  that  industrial  activity,  which  culmi- 
nated not  only  in  the  commercial  greatness  of  England,  but  which  wrested 
the  power  of  government  from  kings  and  barons,  and  transferred  it  to 
English  freemen.  It  was  this  spirit  which  animated  the  Anglo-Saxon 
people  in  their  struggle  for  civil  and  religious  liberty.  It  is  this  spirit 
which  has  been  the  mainspring  of  civilization  and  progress  wherever 
independence  and  national  greatness  have  been  secured. 

1  Dean's  British  Constitution,  pp.  20-21. 


Improye- 
condition 


CHAPTER  II. 

Trade;  and  Commerce  Monopolized  by  Foreigners. 

At  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  England  was  purely  an  agri- 
cultural country.  Mr.  Gibbins,  in  speaking  of  their  manufacturing  indus- 
tries at  the  time  of  Edward  III. ,  says : 

There  was  a  considerable  manufacturing  industry  chiefly  of  coarse  cloth,  an 
industry  very  widely  spread  and  carried  on  in  people's  own  cottages  under  the 
domestic  system.  The  chief  kinds  of  cloth  made  were  hempen,  linen  and  woolen 
coverings,  such  as  would  be  used  for  sacks,  dairy  cloths,  wool  packs,  sails  of  wiud- 
mills  and  similar  purposes,  i 

The  principal  source  of  English  wealth  and  revenue  at  this  time  was 
wool.  In  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  annual  value  of  the 
export  of  wool  was  180,683  pounds  sterling.  The  taxes  of  Edward  III. 
paid  in  wool  were  calculated  not  in  money  but  in  wool  sacks. 

In  one  year  parliament  granted  him  20,000  sacks,  in  another  30,000  sacks  and 
in  1339  the  barons  granted  him  the  tenth  sheep's  fleece  and  lamb.  Early  in  the 
fifteenth  century  30,000  pounds  sterling  out  of  40,000  pounds  sterling,  revenue  from 
customs  and  taxes,  came  from  wool  alone. ' 

The  commercial  policy  of  England  was  conducted  wholly  upon  free 
trade  lines.  Not  only  was  the  greatest  liberality  extended  to  foreigners 
in  trade,  but  they  were  encouraged  to  bring  their  wares  into  the  country 
for  sale.  Royal  charters  were  granted  to  them,  under  which  they  enjoyed 
the  privilege  of  establishing  headquarters  in  London,  and  there  monopoliz- 
ing the  trade  and  business  of  the  country.  The  merchants  of  the  Han- 
seatic  League,  the  Italians  and  the  Flemish,  held  privileges  that  were  not 
enjoyed  by  Englishmen.  Under  these  special  charters  they  were  per- 
mitted to  bring  their  goods  into  the  country,  duty  free,  and  to  monopolize, 
not  only  the  wholesale  but  the  retail  trade.  Soon  after  the  Norman 
Conquest,  a  few  mechanics  and  artisans  came  from  the  Continent,  but  it 
was  a  long  time  before  an  artisan  class  arose. 

Immediately  following  the  Norman  Conquest,  a  number  of  Flemish 
weavers  who  had  been  deprived  of  their  homes  by  an  inundation,  and  had 
immigrated  to  England,  sought  the  patronage  of  Queen  Matilda,  who  was 
a  Flemish  woman.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  any  important 
results  followed  their  settlement.  The  building  of  castles,  monasteries 
and  cathedrals,  which  followed  the  Norman  Conquest,  invited  masons  and 


History  of  England, 


'IJ..  p. 


TRADE  MONOPOLIZED  BY  FOREIGNERS. 


mechanics  from  the  Continent,  who  remained  and  contributed  to  the 
mechanical  skill  of  the  country.' 

A  number  of  merchants  followed  William  the  Conqueror  and  set  up 
business  in  London.  At  this  time  wool  was  exported  to  Flanders  and  cloth 
imported.  In  1155  the  articles  of  export  were  lead,  tin,  fish,  fat  cattle, 
wool  and  jet.  In  1221  wine  was  obtained  from  France  and  Lorraine.  As 
«arlj'  as  the  time  of  Ethelred,  the  Germans  received  a  license  to  establish 
trading  quarters  in  London.  Similar  privileges  were  granted  to  the 
merchants  of  Cologne,  by  Henry  II.,  in  1157.  They  were  to  be  protected 
in  London  as  his  own  men,  both  in  their  merchandise,  possessions  and 
houses,  without  interference  from  any  one.  Under  Richard  I.  they  received 
still  further  privileges.  They  were  to  pay  only  two  shillings  a  year  for 
their  quarters,  and  were  exempt  from  payment  of  cu.stoms,  and  had  the 
freedom  of  all  the  fairs  in  the  realm.  This  charter  was  subsequently  con- 
firmed by  King  John  and  Henry  III.  These  German  merchants  established 
headquarters  in  London,  in  a  place  assigned  to  them,  called  the  Steel 
Yard,  which  they  occupied  for  centuries.  They  elected  their  own  alder- 
man, and  their  headquarters  became  a  place  of  great  commercial  impor- 
tance. The  Flemish  merchants  were  also  granted  a  house  of  their  own. 
These  privileges  were  extended  by  Edward  II. ,  and  successive  English 
monarchs.  In  1325  Edward  II.  gave  to  the  Venetian  merchants  full 
liberty  to  sell  their  merchandise  in  England.  Edward  III.  gave  addi- 
tional rights  to  the  merchants  of  the  Hanseatic  League  in  consideration 
of  an  advance  of  money  for  the  redemption  of  his  crown  jewels,  which  he 
had  pawned  at  Cologne.  The  bankers  of  Florence  had  also  loaned 
Edward  III.  a  large  sum  of  money.  They  were  made  collectors  of  his 
customs  and  extensively  operated  in  England  under  privileges  procured 
from  the  king. 

At  this  time  the  people  of  England  were  without  merchant  vessels, 
men-of-war  or  foreign  commerce.  The)'  were  also  without  domestic 
industries,  and  relied  upon  foreigners  for  all  clothing,  weapons  and  imple- 
ments, excepting  those  of  a  coarse  domestic  make.  All  articles  from 
abroad  passed  through  the  hands  of  foreigners,  who,  of  course,  were 
constantly  prospering  from  this  trade.  Even  the  wholesale  and  retail 
trade  of  the  cities  and  boroughs  was  to  a  large  extent  monopolized 
by  aliens.  An  utter  disregard  was  shown  for  the  welfare  and  prosperity 
of  the  masses.  This  system  of  placing  a  premium  upon  the  business 
of  merchant  strangers  and  sustaining  the  industries  of  the  Venetians 
and  Dutch,  was  pursued  until  England  realized  her  insignificance, 
and  became  not  only  jealous,  but  in  constant  fear  of  the  power  of  her 
neighbors  across  the  channel.  That  England  should  have  been  several 
centuries  behind  the  people  of  the  Continent,  in  industrial  life,  was  the 
natural   and   inevitable    result  of   this  policy.     The   Hanseatic  League 

1  Growth  of  Eng.  Ind.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  138-139. 


Privileges 
yoreign 


Commer- 
cial insig- 

of  England 


EABLY  ENGLAND. 

continued  to  hold  their  quarters  much  longer  than  the  Italians.  As  late 
as  1474  more  favorable  terms  and  privileges  were  extended  to  them  by 
Edward  IV.  They  were  given  absolute  po-ssession  of  their  guild  halls  in 
London,  and  also  permitted  to  e.stabli.sh  quarters  in  Boston  and  Lynn. 
It  was  not  until  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  in  the  year  1597,  that  their  charters 
were  finally  annulled.  For  nearly  four  hundred  years  this  powerful  organ- 
ization of  German  cities  by  their  wealth,  persi.stency  and  political  influ- 
ence were  enabled  to  flood  England  with  foreign  wares  and  hinder  the 
industrial  development  of  the  country.  During  the  fifteenth  century  their 
privileges  were  exercised  in  the  face  of  the  constant  protest  of  London 
merchants,  and  by  the  unwilling  acquiescence  of  English  monarchs,  who 
by  their  need  of  money,  lack  of  ships  and  dependent  condition  were  too 
feeble  to  protect  the  rights  of  their  subjects.  The  trouble  encountered 
by  the  English  people  in  expelling  these  alien  merchants  who  had  been 
sapping  the  life  of  the  country,  and  in  gaining  control  of  their  own 
markets  and  becoming  relieved  from  their  exactions,  shows  how  difficult 
it  is  for  people  reduced  by  a  free  trade  policy  to  rid  themselves  of  the 
entanglements  and  complications  of  such  alliances. 

The  English  people  embarked  upon  a  policy  of  developing  their  own 
resources  and  establishing  indu.stries  under  mo.st  serious  difficulties.  It 
was  a  struggle  with  powerful  and  wealthy  rivals,  who  had  not  only  been 
long  in  the  business  with  their  industries  well  developed,  but  who  held  an 
absolute  monopoly  of  English  markets  through  political  and-  financial 
influences.  The  English  monarchs,  engaged  almost  constantly  in 
foreign  wars,  were  not  only  compelled  to  borrow  money  of  strangers,  but 
could  not  displease  them  without  embarrassing  their  own  plans.  The 
more  wealthy  and  powerful  rivals  could  not  at  once  be  cut  off  from 
English  trade.  Besides  England  had  no  ships,  and  her  merchants  could 
not  at  once  build  merchant  vessels  and  put  to  sea  without  the  protection 
of  men-of-war,  and  this  they  were  too  poor  to  afford.  The  development  of 
industries  was  necessarily  slow  for  other  reasons.  The  mass  of  the  people 
were  ignorant  and  unskilled.  Their  tastes  and  training  had  been  confined 
to  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  and  the}'  had  no  money  to  invest  in  busi- 
ness enterprises.  If  the  landed  aristocracy  had  any  ambition,  it  lay  in  the 
direction  of  foreign  conquests  and  militarj'  achievements.  Without  ship- 
ping, without  a  navy  and  constantly  being  drained  of  their  treasure, 
the  people  were  so  tightly  bound  by  the  fetters  of  free  trade,  that  a 
change  of  policj-  was  most  difficult.  The  gradual  rise  of  the  industrial 
classes  first  appears  in  a  revolt  against  aliens.  Edward  I.  imposed  higher 
duties  on  goods  imported  by  strangers  than  upon  similar  articles  brought 
in  by  natives.  He  appointed  officers  to  collect  duties,  prevent  smuggling 
and  enforce  laws.  This  policy  was  reversed  by  Edward  II.  and  the  privi- 
leges of  foreigners  restored.  At  this  time  complaints  arose  among  the 
merchants  of  London  against  the  Italians  and  Germans.     It  was  stated  in 


TRADE  MONOPOLIZED  BY  FOKEICXER^. 


their  petition  to  Edward  III.  that,  "The  citisois  that  bore  the  conni. 
burdeiis  of  the  toivii  were  impoverished  by  the  competition  of  foreigni 
whose  stay  zi'as  unlimited:'  But  no  relief  was  granted.  These  complaints 
were  continued  from  time  to  time,  until  Edward  III.,  in  1327,  by  charter 
:ommanded,  "all  merchant  strangers  coming  to  England  to  sell  their  wares 
md  merchandise  within  forty  days  of  coming  hither,  and  to  continue  to 
board  with  some  free  hosts  of  the  city Without  any  house- 
hold or  society  by  them  kept."  This  charter  was  followed  by  another 
exercise  of  royal  prerogative  in  1376,  which  prohibited  all  strangers  "from 
selling  any  wares  in  the  city,  or  any  suburbs  of  the  city,  by  retail  or 
through  a  broker.'" 

This,  however,  applied  only  to  the  city  of  London,  and  the  Han,seatic 
League  was  not  included  within  the  restrictions.  The  struggle  between 
the  home  and  foreign  merchants  continued  for  many  years.  It  was  not, 
however,  over  the  importation  of  goods,  the  building  of  factories  and  the 
employment  of  labor  in  England,  but  upon  the  policy  of  allowing  aliens 
who  brought  the  goods  into  the  country  to  monopolize,  as  they  long  con- 
tinued to  do,  retail  as  well  as  wholesale  trade.  Parliament  finally  came 
to  the  rescue  of  the  foreigners  and  by  a  statute'  granted  full  freedom  to 
the  alien  merchants  in  utter  disregard  of  the  ancient  charter  rights  of  the 
city  of  London,  to  fix  its  own  tolls  and  customs  and  to  regulate  trade 
within  its  borders.  Edward  III.,  however,  renewed  the  charter  of  the 
city,  providing  in  the  instrument  that,  "No  strangers  shall  from  hence- 
forth sell  any  wares  in  the  same  city  or  suburbs  thereof  by  retail,  nor  by 
any  broker  in  said  city  or  .suburbs  thereof,  any  statute  or  ordinance 
made  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."  But  during  this  agitation, 
Edward  III.  was  under  such  obligations  to  the  merchants  of  the  Hanse- 
atic  League,  that  they  were  exempted  from  the  operation  of  this  charter, 
and  their  privileges  continued  as  before. 

1  Growth  of  Eng.  Ind.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  270.         =9th  Edw.  III.,  c.  I. 


Protection 
introduced 
by  Edivard 


CHAPTER  III. 

First  Attempts  at  Protection. 

From  1327  to  1377,  a  period  of  fifty  years,  Edward  III.  reigned  over 
the  English  people.  At  a  time  when  the  spirit  of  chivalr>-  was  in  its 
zenith  and  foreign  conquest  and  militar}^  achievements  were  the  high- 
est ambition  of  a  king,  Edward  III.  entered  upon  a  commercial  policy 
which  gave  him  a  greater  distinction  than  all  the  glory  gained  in 
the  victory  of  Crecy  or  in  any  of  his  military  achievements  on  the  Con- 
tinent. The  appellation  of  the  "Father  of  English  commerce,"  has  been 
conferred  upon  him  by  the  generations  of  people  who  have  prospered 
under  the  influence  of  that  mercantile  policy,  which  he  gave  to  England. 
Henry  C.  Carey  says  the 

Magna  Charta  secured  the  privileges  of  the  aristocracy,  but  the  statute  of  1337 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  liberties  of  the  people,  by  providing  for  the  diversity  of 
their  employment  and  the  development  of  individual  faculties ;  as  a  consequence  of 
■which  the  change  of  system  was  followed  by  a  rapid  increase  of  both  individual  and 
national  power' 

Considering  the  circumstances  and  conditions  of  the  times,  the 
establishment  of  this  policy  by  Edward  III.,  is  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant episodes  in  the  history  of  England. 

In  1 33 1  he  invited  John  Kemp,  a  Flemish  weaver,  guaranteeing  to 
him  special  protection,  to  set  up  cloth  weaving  in  England,  and  he 
came  with  his  servants  and  apprentices,  both  weavers,  fullers  and  dyers. 
He  and  his  men  were  to  enjoy  the  king's  protection  and  were  encouraged 
to  exercise  their  craft,  and  to  instruct  those  who  wished  to  learn.'  Further 
than  this  Edward^  invited  artisans  from  all  countries  to  settle  in  his  realm, 
guaranteeing  them  full  protection  in  setting  up  their  crafts.  About  this 
time,  weavers  came  from  Zealand  and  Brabant.  "In  1368  three  clock 
makers  from  Delft  were  encouraged  to  settle  and  ply  their  trade  in  London, 
and  a  craft  of  linen-weavers  was  also  introduced  before  the  end  of  the  cen- 
tury. ' ' ' 

In  1337,  however,  an  act  was  passed'  which  made  the  reign  of  this 
monarch  one  of  the  most  famous  in  the  commercial  history  of  England. 
It  was  the  first  of  that  long  series  of  parliamentary  enactments,  which 
fostered  and  encouraged  English  industries  and  attempted  to  establish  the 

GrowthofEng.  Ind.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  283.  »iUh,  Edw.  III.,  cc.  1-5. 

i.       '3d.  Kdw.  III.,  cc.  3-4. 

(46) 


FIRST  ATTEMPTH  AT  PROTECTION. 


policy  of  protection  in  Great  Britain.  This  statute  prohibited  the  export 
of  wool  so  that  it  might  be  turned  to  the  manufacture  of  cloth  in  Eng- 
land. The  importation  of  cloth  was  prohibited.  All  Engli.shmen  were 
required  to  wear  domestic  cloth,  excepting  in  those  instances  where  the 
statutes  permitted  the  wearing  of  furs.  Mr.  Cunningham  in  speaking  of 
the  result  of  this  legislation  says: 

The  fact  remains  that  he  (Edward)  did  introduce  the  manufacture  of  the  old 
draper}',  which  was  prosecuted  so  successfully  that  the  export  of  raw  wool  declined, 
as  home  manufacture  came  to  flourish  more  and  more.  It  is  interesting  to  observe, 
too,  how  closely  many  subsequent  efforts  to  plant  new  industries  followed  on  the 
lines  that  Edward  III.  had  laid  down.' 

The  instances  in  which  Edward  favored  the  Italians  and  Germans, 
and  those  other  acts  of  liberality  toward  foreigners,  are  mentioned  by 
many  economic  writers  as  an  illustration  of  free  trade  tendencies  in  this 
monarch.  But  taking  his  whole  career  into  consideration,  those  acts  may 
be  accounted  for  by  his  impoverished  condition,  his  dependence  on  those 
foreign  merchants  for  loans  as  well  as  their  ability  to  embarrass  his 
political  schemes.  The  treatment  which  he  would  have  extended  to 
foreigners,  had  he  been  less  dependent  upon  them,  is  indicated  by  the 
special  efforts  made  to  establish  industries  and  build  up  a  commercial 
class.  He  declared  his  "sovereignty  of  the  .sea,"  and  w^ould  undoubtedly 
have  enforced  it,  had  he  been  provided  with  the  means  to  construct  a  navy. 
The  broad  and  comprehensive  commercial  policy  which  he  had  in  mind 
cannot  be  mistaken.  This  legislation  was  certainly  in  response  to  a 
growing  feeling  among  the  people  of  the  importance  of  building  up  indus- 
tries in  England. 

This  policy  begun  under  Edward  III.  was  further  developed  by  his 
successor,  Richard  II.,  in  whose  time  complaints  were  renewed  against 
alien  merchants.  They  were  accused  of  enhancing  prices  by  combi- 
nations to  the  injury  of  local  merchants  and  dealers;  to  prevent  such 
practices  an  act  was  passed  which  provided  as  follows:  "It  is  ordered 
and  assented  that  no  merchant  stranger  alien  shall  sell  nor  buy  merchan- 
dise within  the  realm  with  another  stranger  merchant  alien  to  sell 
again. ' ' '' 

The  first  effort  on  the  part  of  parliament  to  encourage  domestic 
shipping  contained  the  following  provision:  "To  increase  the  navy 
of  England  which  is  greatly  diminished,  it  is  assented  and  accorded 
that  none  of  the  king's  liege  people  do  from  henceforth  ship  any 
merchandise  in  going  out  or  coming  within  the  realm  of  England  in  any 
port,  but  only  in  the  king's  legation."  '  It  does  not  appear  that  this  law 
was  enforced  or  that  it  had  any  effect  in  stimulating  shipbuilding, 
It  was   at   a   much   later  period,   and  tinder  navigation  laws  specially 

'Growthof  Eng.  Ind.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  285.        2  26th,  R.  II.,  c.  I.        s  15th  R.  II.,  c.  3. 


ofthepr 
ttcti-.'e 


EARLY  ENGLAND. 

enacted  at  the  time,  that  the  period  of  shipbuilding  and  the  growth  of 
merchant  shipping  began.  By  section  two  of  the  preceding  statute,  the 
export  of  bullion,  gold,  silver  coin,  plate,  etc.,  was  prohibited. 

Protection  to  agriculture  was  also  embraced  within  this  policy.  In 
1453  the  merchants  of  the  Hanseatic  League  began  to  bring  large  quan- 
tities of  wheat  into  the  country.  This  interference  with  the  agricultural 
interests  by  foreign  competition  was  restricted  by  a  statute '  which  pro- 
hibited the  import  of  foreign-grown  grain,  when  the  price  of  wheat  at  the 
port  of  entry  did  not  exceed  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  to  the  quarter. 

It  was  during  this  period,  and  especially  under  Richard  II.,  that  the 
system  of  bondage  among  the  agriculturalists  was  abolished,  and  the  rural 
population  given  the  occupancy  of  land  under  leases  and  copyholds. 
This  change  connected  with  the  system  of  protection  to  agriculture,  which 
was  inaugurated  and  subsequently  enforced  for  centuries,  with  great  vigor, 
built  up  that  large  body  of  yeomanry  which  added  so  much  to  the  inde- 
pendence and  strength  of  the  English  people. 

Though  the  outcry  about  the  interference  of  foreigners  in  the  great  manufac- 
tures of  the  country  had  no  immediate  effect,  serious  efforts  were  made  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century,  to  encourage  native  industry,  partly  by  prohibit- 
ing the  importation  of  finished  goods,  and  partly  by  encouraging  the  importation 
of  materials.  In  1455  a  complaint  was  made  on  behalf  of  the  silk  women  and  spin- 
ners of  the  mistery  and  occupation  of  silk  working  in  London,  that  the  Lombards, 
with  the  intention  of  destroying  the  said  mistery,  were  introducing  ribbons  and 
chains,  falsely  and  deceitfully  wrought,  all  manner  of  girdles  and  other  things  con- 
cerning the  said  mistery  and  occupation,  in  no  manner-wise  bringing  in  any  good 
silk  unwrought  as  they  were  wont  to  bring  heretofore;  and  parliament  entirely  pro- 
hibited the  importation  of  these  goods  under  the  penalty  of  forfeiture,  together 
with  a  heavy  fine.  • 

The  reigns  of  the  Yorkists  were  particularly  distinguished  for  the  eagerness  with 
which  this  policy  was  pursued.  Edward  IV.  passed  similar  measures  with  regard 
to  silk  in  1463  and  1483;  but  the  former  statute  contained  another  clause  of  a  far 
more  sweeping  character.  It  complains  that  owing  to  the  import  of  wares  "fully 
wrought  and  ready  made  to  sale"  the  "  artificers  cannot  live  by  their  misteries  and 
occupations  as  they  have  done  in  times  past,  but  diverse  of  them  as  well  household- 
ers as  hirelings  and  other  servants  and  apprentices,  in  great  number  be  this  day 
unoccupied  and  do  hardly  live,  in  great  miserj-,  poverty  and  need, ' '  and  it  proceeds 
to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  a  very  miscellaneous  assortment  of  finished  goods.' 

It  seems  hardly  credible  that  up  to  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century 
England  was  relying  on  the  Continent  for  such  a  variety  of  articles  of 
ordinary  dome.stic  use,  as  were  excluded  by  this  act.  The  following  is 
a  list  of  the  articles  prohibited  to  be  imported  by  the  act  referred  to  by 
Professor    Cunningham,  passed  in   1463,  to-wit: 

Woolen  caps,  woolen  cloth,   laces,   corses,   ribbands,  fringes  of  silk  and  thread, 
laces  of   thread,  silk  twined,  silk   in  any  wise  embroidered,  laces  of  gold,  tyres  of 
silk  or  gold,  saddles,  .stirrups,  or  any  harness  pertaining  to  saddlery,  spurs,  bosses 
'  3d,  Kdw.  IV.,  c.  2.        'Growth  of  Eng.  Ind.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  384-5. 


FIRST  ATTEMPTS  AT  PROTECTION. 


if  bridles,  andirons,  gridirons,  any  manner  of  locks,  pinsons,  fire  tongs,  dripping 
)ans,  dice,  tennis  balls,  points,  purses,  gloves,  girdles,  harness  for  girdles  of  iron, 
atten  steel,  tin  or  of  alkemine,  anything  wrought  of  any  tawed  leather,  any  tawed 
urrs,  buscans,  shoes,  galoches,  or  corks,  knives,  daggers,  wood  knives,  bodkins,  shear 
or  tailors,  scissors,  razors,  sheaves,  playing  cards,  pins,  pattens,  pack  needles  or 
iny  painted  ware,  forcers,  caskets,  rings  of  copper,  or  of  latten  gilt,  or  chafing  dishes, 
langing  candle-sticks,  chafing  balls,  sacring  bells,  rings  for  curtains,  ladles,  skim- 
ners,  counterfeit  basins,  ewers,  hats,  brushes,  cards  for  wool,  blanch  iron  thread, 
;ommonly  called  white  wire.' 

Henry  VII.  whose  administration  is  partictilarly  distingtii.shed  for  the 
attention  given  by  him  to  the  accumulation  of  capital  and  encouragement 
af  industries  in  1488,  induced  skilled  laborers  to  come  from  the  Continent 
and  instruct  his  people.  Another  act  was  passed  at  this  time '  which  pro- 
bibited  the  export  of  wool  and  the  export  of  white  ashes  was  prohibited 
in  order  that  a  plentiful  supply  of  material  might  be  had  for  making  and 
dressing  wool.' 

In  1552  a  general  act  was  passed  for  the  regulation,  control  and 
encouragement  of  the  woolen  industries  of  the  realm.  Cunningham  in 
speaking  of  the  success  of  the  protective  policy  at  the  time  of  Queen  Mary 
at  the  close  of  the  period  in  question,  says: 

It  was  the  means  of  giving  special  advantages  to  English  merchants  and  of  pro- 
tecting English  artisans.  This  definite  political  object  was  kept  clearly  in  view 
with  regard  to  direct  and  indirect  taxation  alike.  In  the  very  same  year  in  which 
the  general  subsidy  was  voted  which  aliens  paid  at  a  double  rate,  the  king  was 
empowered  to  rearrange  the  whole  scheme  of  rates  and  the  subsequent  manipulation 
of  the  new  customs,  was  prejudicial  to  alien  merchants,  while  the  levying  of  impo- 
sitions was  favorable  to  the  English  artisans.  The  conditions  under  which  aliens 
had  to  trade,  were  rendered  so  hard  that  as  soon  as  the  English  shipping  again 
revived  under  Elizabeth,  they  were  driven  out  of  the  field;  in  the  time  of  Edward 
III.,  they  had  done  most  of  the  trading  of  the  country,  but  they  had  been  gradually 
forced  alike  out  of  internal  trade  and  foreign  commerce.* 

At  the  close  of  this  period,  a  revolution  had  been  wrought  in  the 
industrial  life  of  the  English  people.  A  people  familiar  with  and  adapted 
to  agricultural  pursuits  alone,  had  been  transformed  into  skilled  mechan- 
ics. Artisans  from  the  Continent  had  become  instructors  through 
inducements  and  special  advantages  oflEered  by  this  policy.  Busy  centres 
of  industry  were  growing  up  in  localities  which  had  thronged  with 
tramps  and  beggars.  The  agricultural  districts  surrounding  the  towns 
and  boroughs,  where  shops  had  been  established,  were  finding  a  local 
market  for  farm  produce,  and  receiving  in  exchange  tools,  implements 
and  clothing.  New  fields  were  opened  for  the  employment  of  labor,  the 
development  of  talent,  skill  and  the  cultivation  of  enterprise  and  business 
ability.  The  English  people  were  beginning  now  to  supply  themselves 
with  the  manufactured  articles  which  prior  to  the  adoption  of  this  policy 
had  come  from  the  factories  and  workshops  of  Europe. 


Effect  0/ 
ike  protec- 
tive policy. 


•  Cunningham,  Vol.  I.,  p.  385.  24th,  H.  VII., 

< Cunningham.  Vol.  I.,  p.  490. 


'22d.,  H.  VIII.,  c.  2d  and  37th,  H.  VII. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Rise  and  Fall  of  Trade  Guilds. 

As  a  part  of  the  indtistrial  life  of  the  people  of  the  free  cities  and 
boroughs,  there  grew  up  a  combination  of  persons  for  mutual  protection 
and  benefits  in  trade.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  attempt  to  describe  the 
ancient  "peace  guilds"  or  those  organizations  formed  for  religious  and 
charitable  purposes  known  as  "religious  guilds." 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  tradesmen  of  these  cities  formed  associations 
known  as  "merchants'  guilds. ' '  As  the  cities  and  boroughs  grew  in  im- 
portance, and  as  tradesmen  increased,  the  citizens  of  these  municipalities 
combined  to  control  the  trade  and  industries,  and  later  their  power  was 
extended  to  municipal  affairs.  Under  their  earlier  charters,  the  merchant 
guilds  secured  the  right  of  coinage,  grants  of  fairs  and  exemption  from 
tolls.  The}'  framed  the  regulations  for  the  sale  of  goods,  the  location  and 
control  of  markets,  the  collection  of  debts,  of  tolls  and  customs,  the  regu- 
lation of  prices  and  quality  of  goods.  Their  participation  in  politics 
arose  from  their  influence  and  numbers,  rather  than  from  any  special 
chartered  privileges.  Merchant  guilds  continued  until  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  when  they  were  superseded  in  their  influence,  at  least, 
by  the  "craft  guilds." 

Craft  guilds  were  a  combination  of  artisans  or  craftsmen  associated 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  trades.  A  seven  years'  apprentice- 
ship was  required;  minute  rules  and  regulations  were  adopted,  fixing 
hours  of  labor,  wages  and  quality  of  goods.  The  body  was  governed  by 
a  board  of  overseers  or  wardens,  selected  from  their  number,  who  inspected 
work,  enforced  ordinances,  collected  fines  and  expelled  members.  An 
expelled  member  lost  his  right  to  pursue  his  occupation  in  a  city  or 
borough  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  guild.  A  common  fund  for  charit- 
able and  other  purposes  was  created.  A  long  struggle  continued  between 
the  craft  and  merchant  guilds,  arising  over  the  objection  raised  by  the 
merchant  guilds,  to  the  granting  of  charters  to  their  rivals.  The  struggle 
was  ended  in  the  fourteenth  centurj-  when  Edward  III.  granted  royal 
charters  to  the  crafts.  After  a  time  merchant  guilds  were  practically 
supplanted,  lost  their  popularity  and  influence,  and  the  craftsmen  came 
into  favor.  All  members  of  guilds  were  made  freemen,  a  serf  who  had 
left  his  manor  and  enrolled  himself  as  a  member  of  a  guild  in  some  town 
or  borough,  gained  freedom  after  remaining  a  year  and  a  day.  The 
growth  of  these  organizations  .so  extended  that  all  craftsmen  and  traders 
(50) 


TRADE  GUILDS. 


vere  brought  within  their  jurisdiction  and  governed  by  their  ordinances 
.nd  regulations,  excepting,  however,  those  alien  artisans  who  b)-  special 
avor  of  the  monarch  were  exempt  from  their  control.  When  they 
)ecame  fully  organized,  three  classes  of  members  existed,  to  wit,  masters, 
ourneymen  and  apprentices.  The  master  was  a  property-  owner  and 
louseholder,  was  skilled  in  the  business,  employed  journeymen  and 
nstructed  apprentices,  taking  them  into  his  service  to  teach  them  the 
nysteries  of  a  trade.  The  journeyman  was  one  who  had  served  his  time 
LS  an  apprentice  and  remained  in  the  employ  of  his  former  or  some  other 
aaster.  The  apprentice  was  bound  to  a  seven  years'  service  by  an  inden- 
ure  entered  into  with  his  master.  The  guilds  were  fully  organized 
hroughout  Europe,  long  before  thej'  had  gained  a  foothold  in  England, 
ntroduced  into  England  by  the  artisan  immigrants  from  the  Continent, 
hey  were  of  slow  growth,  and  it  was  not  until  the  fourteenth  centur>-  that 
hey  became  numerous.  From  the  time  of  Edward  III.  until  the  middle 
)f  the  sixteenth  century,  a  period  of  two  hundred  j-ears,  the  industrial 
ife  of  England  had  its  beginning,  expanded  and  became  of  great  impor- 
ance.  In  the  early  life  of  these  organizations  the  welfare  of  the  public 
vas  constantly  kept  in  view.  Goods  were  inspected  by  experienced 
)verseers  to  secure  excellence  of  quality  and  designs.  Great  care  was  taken 
n  the  instruction  of  apprentices.  The  utmost  fairness  was  accorded  to  all 
nembers  in  the  fixing  of  wages,  hours  of  work  and  distribution  of  profits. 

While  craft  guilds  existed  in  isolated  localities,  among  small  bodies 
)f  artisans  who  had  come  from  the  Continent  soon  after  the  Norman  Con- 
quest, they  were  not  given  royal  charters  and  did  not  become  clothed  with 
egal  jurisdiction  and  authority,  and  their  importance  was  not  appreciated, 
mtil  that  revival  of  industrial  activity  which  followed  and  accompanied 
;he  policy  of  protection  to  native  industries  during  the  two  centuries 
Detween  Edward  II.  and  Elizabeth.  The  adoption  of  protection  in  the 
:ourteenth  century' occurred  at  a  time  when  the  country  was  being  overrun 
jy  foreigners  and  foreign  wares.  The  excessive  competition  waged  by 
aliens,  together  with  a  lack  of  capital  and  skill,  retarded  the  growth  of 
industries.  From  the  lack  of  custom  houses  and  means  of  enforcing 
-evenue  laws,  smuggling  was  extensively  carried  on.  Foreign  wares  were 
brought  into  the  country  in  foreign  ships,  and  the  benefits  of  the  new 
policy  were  lessened,  and  the  guilds  were  harassed  and  injured  by  this 
illicit  trade  which  necessarily  made  the  growth  of  industries  much  slower 
than  it  otherwise  would  have  been.  As  nurseries  of  the  arts  and  mysteries 
3f  the  trades,  as  schools  of  technical  learning,  they  rendered  a  service 
incalculably  great.  Existing  at  a  time  when  industrial  changes  were 
going  on,  they  supplied  employment  and  formed  the  basis  of  the  industrial 
skill  and  enterprise  of  the  English  people. 

This  was  a  period  of  great  economic  changes,  displacement  of  labor 
and  great  oppression  of  the  people  through  the  exactions  of  monarchs, 


EARLY  EXaLAXn. 


especially  during  the  time  of  Henry  VIII. ,  when  a  system  of  confiscation 
of  property  was  carried  on  by  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries  and  the 
seizure  of  their  estates.  The  charters  held  by  the  guilds  were  granted 
at  a  time  when  but  few  trades  existed  and  little  manufacturing  was 
done.  Their  jurisdiction  was  limited  to  the  specific  locality  named  in  the 
charter  of  each  particular  organization.  As  manufacturing  increased, 
new  industries  were  established  in  suburbs  and  manorial  villages, by  jour- 
neymen who  had  failed  to  find  constant  employment  with  the  guilds  or 
who  desired  to  become  master  workmen,  and  to  engage  in  business  on  their 
own  account.  Employment  was  given  to  the  journeymen,  and  apprentices 
were  taken  to  service.  The  shops  thus  set  up  were  continued  without 
charters,  but  under  rules  and  customs  similar  to  those  practiced  by  the 
guilds.  They  did  not,  however,  have  legal  jurisdiction  to  impose  fines 
or  to  enforce  regulations,  but  were  controlled  more  by  common  consent. 
During  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  there  were  two  systems  of  production  operating  side  by  side,  but 
in  different  localities  in  the  same  country ;  the  one  being  the  craft  guilds 
which  had  now  reached  their  full  vigor  and  began  to  show  evidence  of 
decay ;  the  other,  those  establishments  started  by  persons  outside  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  guilds.  These  establishments  were  the  beginning  of 
individual  or  capitalistic  production,  which  superseded  the  guilds,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  continued  for  two  hundred  years, 
until  the  introduction  of  the  factory  system. 

Guilds  were  first  organized  and  conducted  on  the  basis  of  fellowship 
and  community  of  interest ;  the  good  of  the  public ;  the  common  benefit 
and  welfare  of  apprentices  and  journeymen  and  masters  were  equitably 
considered  and  justly  measured  without  complaint.  Duties  were  dis- 
charged toward  each  other  and  toward  the  public  with  a  spirit  of  piety, 
and  in  some  instances  with  a  religious  enthusiasm.  A  portion  of  the 
funds  was  contributed  to  the  church  for  masses  and  religious  obser\'ances. 
In  the  course  of  time  a  surplus  of  journeymen  arose.  The  free  tenants 
who  had  drifted  into  the  boroughs  and  towns  in  search  of  employment  for 
themselves  and  their  children,  were  compelled  to  seek  admission  to  the 
guild.  The  system  of  clearings,  by  which  a  large  portion  of  the  agricul- 
tural population  was  driven  into  the  towns,  increased  the  competition  for 
apprenticeships.  The  guilds  came  to  hold  a  monopoly  of  the  industries 
of  the  country  and  the  employment  of  the  people  in  trades.  Their  rules 
and  regulations  must  be  complied  with  or  it  was  impossible  for  a  journey- 
man to  set  himself  up  in  business  or  find  employment.  Under  these 
circumstances  only  could  a  person  find  service  as  an  apprentice.  By 
petty  ordinances  and  arbitrary  exactions,  the  wardens  and  overseers  in 
their  efforts  to  perpetuate  their  absolute  control,  created  di.ssatisfaction 
which  caused  complaints,  not  only  among  trades  people  outside  of  the 
guilds,  but  among  those  journe\'meii  who  had  suffered  from  their  arbitrar>' 


TRADE  GUILDS. 


regulations,  as  well  as  those  who  had  failed  to  become  apprentices.  In 
1437  the  disaffection  became  so  widespread  that  it  attracted  the  attention 
of  parliament.  Complaints  were  made  "that  they  had  set  the  local 
authorities  at  defiance  and  thus  injured  the  people."  The  preamble  of 
an  act'  of  Henry  VI's  reign  recites  that: 

Masters,  wardens  and  people  of  guilds,  fraternities  and  other  companies  corpo- 
rate, dwelling  in  divers  parts  of  the  realm,  ofttimes  by  color  of  rule  and  governance 
and  other  terms  in  general  words  to  them  granted  and  confirmed  by  charters  and 
letters  patent,  of  diverse  kings,  made  among  themselves  many  unlawful  and 
unreasonable  ordinances,  as  well  in  prices  of  wares  and  other  things  for  their  own 
singular  profit  and  to  the  common  hurt  and  damage  of  the  people. 

This  act  of  parliament  prohibits  the  making  of  any  ordinance  or  rules 
unless  submitted  to  justices  of  the  peace  for  record.  A  later  statute - 
passed  in  1503,  prohibits  the  masters,  wardens  and  fellowships  of  crafts 
and  all  rulers  of  guilds  from  making  any  rules,  regulations  or  ordinances 
for  their  government,  unless  they  are  approved  by  the  chancellor  or  justice 
of  the  peace.  Many  of  the  objectionable  ordinances  and  regulations 
referred  to  in  the  petitions  of  parliament  or  set  forth  in  preambles  of  stat- 
utes, disclose  the  grounds  of  their  objections.  One  of  the  arbitrary  exac- 
tions imposed  upon  the  apprentices  was  in  fixing  excessive  charges  for 
the  privilege  of  entering  upon  an  apprenticeship,  and  heavy  fines  and 
penalties  upon  the  termination  of  such  service.  In  1531  it  was  enacted 
that  "in  no  ca.se  should  they  charge  more  than  half  a  crown  as  an 
apprentice  fee,  and  three  and  four  pence  at  the  end  of  his  service  as 
a  fine."^  These  organizations  were  not  content  with  monopolizing  and 
controlling  apprentices  and  journeymen  while  in  their  employ,  but  took 
measures  to  prevent  their  becoming  competitors  at  the  close  of  their  ser- 
vice.    It  appears  from  a  recital  in  the  statute'   that: 

Diverse  masters,  wardens  and  fellowships  of  crafts  have  by  subtle  means  prac- 
ticed and  compassed  to  defraud  and  delude  the  said  good  and  wholesome  statutes, 
causing  diverse  apprentices  or  young  men  immediately  after  their  years  be  expired 
or  that  they  be  made  free  from  occupation  or  fellowship,  to  be  sworn  upon  the  Holy 
Evangelist  at  their  first  entry,  that  they  nor  any  of  them  after  their  years  or  terms 
expired  shall  set  up  nor  open  any  shop,  house  nor  cellar ;  nor  occupy,  as  freemen,  with- 
out the  assent  and  license  of  the  master,  wardens  or  fellowships  of  their  occupations 
upon  pain  of  forfeiting  their  freedom,  or  other  like  penalty. 

The  effect  of  such  regulations  and  oaths  is  evident.  It  tended  to 
drive  journeymen  who  had  respect  for  their  oaths  outside  of  the  local 
jurisdiction  of  the  guilds  to  set  up  shops  of  their  own;  an  oath  exacted 
under  such  circumstances  could  justly  be  construed  as  morally  bind- 
ing only  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  guild.  In  the 
brief  space  which  must  be  allotted  to  this  subject,  only  an  outline  of 
these  organizations  can  be  given.     They  received   their  death-blow  by 


=  19,  H.  VII., 


I  2Sth,  H.  VIII., 


Death-blow 
to  the  guild 


EAUir  EKGLANV. 

a  statute  passed  in  1547  under  Henrj-  \'III.,  against  associations  and 
dealers  in  victuals.  It  was  also  directed  against  artisans  and  laborers 
wholiad  made  "confederacies  and  promises"  and  "sworn  mutual  oaths." 
Artisans  might  work  where  they  pleased  whether  free  of  the  town  or  not, 
and  the  authority  of  the  local  craft  guilds  was  abolished."'  A  few  sur- 
vived the  effect  of  this  statute  in  cities  like  London,  Ludlow,  Preston  and 
Coventry,  which  could  not  be  interfered  with,  excepting  by  local  authori- 
ties, these  cities  holding  special  constitutions  to  which  general  acts  of 
parliament  did  not  apply.  However  useful  the  guilds  may  have  been  in 
former  times,  they  had  certainly  fallen  into  disrepute  and  lacked  sufficient 
influence  to  continue  their  existence.  They  had  undoubtedly  performed 
a  great  .service  in  the  industrial  life  of  the  country  in  instructing  and 
educating  apprentices,  in  securing  uniform  weights  and  measures,  and 
preventing  frauds  upon  consumers  in  the  sale  of  inferior  wares. 

Upon  the  downfall  of  the  guilds,  manufacturing  by  private  individuals 
and  companies  by  direct  employment  of  labor,  under  the  relation  of 
employer  and  employed,  came  into  practice.  This  change  was  not  brought 
about  in  a  day,  but  was  effected  by  a  gradual  process  in  the  decay  of  old 
industrial  centres  over  which  the  guilds  held  exclusive  jurisdiction  and 
in  the  establishment  of  industries  in  new  localities  under  new  conditions. 
Journeymen,  under  the  patronage  of  landed  proprietors,  opened  shops  in 
village  manors  and  employed  journeymen  and  took  apprentices  independ- 
ently of  those  guilds  which  held  charters. 

1  Cunuiughara,  Growth  of  English  Industries,  Vol.  I.,  p.  465. 


CHAPTER  V. 


Disorganization  of  Labor. 


The  reign  of  Edward  III.  is  noted  for  the  Black  Death  or  a  deadly 
plague  which  started  in  Asia,  traveled  westward  over  Europe  and  reached 
England  in  1348.  It  spread  over  the  country  and  carried  off  about 
one-third  of  the  population.'  It  was  more  than  a  centurj'  before  the  peo- 
ple recovered  fully  from  the  effects  of  this  terrible  visitation.  Another 
cause  which  during  this  period  operated  to  disorganize  labor  was  the 
system  of  enclosures  which  was  resorted  to  by  the  land  o^^ners.  Vast 
tracts  which  hitherto  had  been  cultivated  were  fenced  in  for  sheep  pastures 
and  cattle  grazing. 

During  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,the  property  of  the  Catholic  Church 
was  confiscated,  which,  in  connection  with  the  enclosures,  threw  large 
numbers  of  people  out  of  employment,  and  created  great  distress 
among  the  laboring  clas.ses.  The  monasteries  held  large  tracts  of  land, 
gave  support  and  employment  to  multitudes  of  people,  and  at  the  same 
time  were  the  only  bodies  who  looked  after  the  poor,  and  assumed  the 
burden  of  distributing  public  charities.  The  confiscation  of  the  property 
of  the  guilds  was  another  act  of  Henry  VIII.  which  dealt  a  severe  blow 
to  the  industrial  masses.  The  lands  confiscated  were  handed  over  to  a 
set  of  court  favorites  and  retainers. 

By  the  enclosures  the  people  were  driven  from  the  manors,  their  cot- 
tages and  habitations  demolished  and  vast  numbers  of  rural  laborers  were 
set  free  to  seek  other  employment.  They  could  not  remain  on  the  land  or  go 
back  to  it  without  the  con.sent  of  the  proprietors.  The  displacement 
of  labor,  caused  by  this  and  by  the  confiscation  of  monasteries  and  the 
property  of  guilds,  flooded  England  with  a  surplus  of  laborers  seeking 
new  employments.  Neither  the  demands  of  the  country  in  agriculture 
nor  in  the  industries  were  sufficient  to  absorb  the  thousands  who  were 
driven  into  idleness.  As  they  .sought  refuge  in  the  towns  and  boroughs, 
the  guilds,  as  far  as  possible,  enrolled  them  as  apprentices.  This  condi- 
tion filled  the  land  with  paupers,  who  overran  the  country  to  such  an 
extent  that  the  most  stringent  laws  for  the  suppression  of  begging  were 
imavailing.  Homeless  and  landless,  ignorant  and  unskilled,  seeking  an 
opportunity  to  apply  their  God-given  forces  in  honest  toil  to  obtain  sub- 
sistence, they  wandered  about  the  countrj-  begging  for  bread  and  pleading 
for  work.     These  acts  of  confiscation  and  this  system  of  enclosure  under 

^  Industrial  History  of  Kngland,  p.  70. 


EARLY  ENGLAND. 


Condition 
ofthe 

o/  remedial 
legislation. 


which  the  habitations  of  so  many  people  were  demolished  are  without  a  par- 
allel in  brutality  in  the  history  of  England.  The  manorial  system  following 
the  Norman  Conquest,  however  unjust  and  arbitrary  it  may  have  been, 
yet  had  the  redeeming  feature  that  although  the  serf  was  bound  to  the 
land  and  held  in  bondage,  he  was  sure  of  subsistence  upon  the  manor  by 
his  industry. 

During  this  transitional  period, the  hope  of  the  people  lay  in  the  sys- 
tem of  a  protective  tarifi.  They  were  wards  of  the  realm.  The  king 
and  English  nobility  owed  them  a  duty.  It  was  a  moral,  as  well  as  a 
political,  obligation.  Apart  from  all  considerations  of  national  greatness 
and  individual  gain,  it  called  for  the  interference  of  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  realm  in  behalf  of  humanity.  Although  it  took  a  longtime  to  work 
out  the  problem,  relief  at  last  came  to  the  people,  through  the  building 
up  of  industries,  the  improvement  of  agriculture  and  the  development  of 
the  domestic  resources  of  the  country  in  which  they  found  means  of  sub- 
sistence. 

The  following  extract  throws  much  light  upon  the  terrible  condition 
to  which  the  people  of  England  were  reduced  during  the  reign  of  that 
monarch  who  has  been  so  glorified  by  many  English  writers,  and  yet 
whose  reign  is  blotted  with  some  of  the  basest  acts  of  cruelty  known  to 
history : 

Concerning  the  poor  people,  notwithstanding  all  the  laws  made  against  their 
begging  and  for  the  provision  of  them  within  their  several  parishes  and  towns 
where  they  dwell;  for  there  be  for  one  beggar  in  the  first  year  of  King  Henry  VIII. 
at  this  day,  in  the  thirty-third  year  of  her  majestj',  an  hundred.  As  may  partly  be 
gathered  by  the  multitude  of  the  beggars  that  came  to  the  funeral  of  George,  late  Earl 
of  Shrewsbury,  celebrated  at  Sheiiield  in  Yorkshire,  the  13th  day  of  January  in  the 
thirty-third  year.  For  there  were  by  the  report  of  such  as  served  the  dole  unto 
them,  the  number  of  eight  thousand,  and  they  thought  that  there  were  almost  as 
many  more  that  could  not  be  served  through  their  unruliness.  Yea,  the  press  was -so 
great  that  diverse  were  slain  and  many  hurt;  and  further  it  is  reported  of  credible 
persons,  that  well  estimated  the  number  of  all  the  said  beggars,  that  they  thought 
there  was  about  twenty  thousand.  Now  judge  ye  what  a  number  of  poor  people  is 
to  be  thought  to  be  within  the  whole  realm,  seeing  so  man)'  appeareth  to  be  in  one 
small  part  of  a  county  or  shire,  for  it  is  thought  by  great  conjecture,  that  all 
the  said  poor  people  were  abiding  and  dwelling  within  thirty  miles  of  the  town  of 
Sheffield  aforesaid,  and  yet  were  there  many  more  that  came  not  to  the  dole. ' 

An  examination  of  the  condition  under  which  protection  was  adopted 
in  England  cannot  be  made  by  a  candid  and  careful  observer,  without 
repudiating  the  constantly  repeated  statement  that  the  mercantile  system 
was  e.stabli.shed  through  base  and  selfi.sh  motives,  for  the  purpose  of  acquir- 
ing political  power  and  of  promoting  personal  ends.  However  arbitrary 
and  tyrannical  the  ruling  classes  were  at  this  time,  it  is  not  possible  to 
conceive  in  them  a  character  devoid  of  all  sense  of  righteou.sness  and 
luimanitv;  but  such  thev  must  have  possessed,  to  witness  unmoved  by 


all  of  Religious  Houses,  Colo.  Mss, 


DISORGANIZATION  OF  LABOR. 


pity,  the  masses  of  their  own  people  in  idleness  and  degradation,  under 
circumstances  which  would  perpetuate  such  conditions  without  that 
protection  which  it  was  within  their  power  to  extend. 

The  question  of  finding  employment  for  labor  was  never  so  pressed 
home  upon  any  people,  as  it  was  upon  the  English  people  at  this  time. 
The  contrast  between  their  condition  during  the  period  above  treated  and 
that  which  prevailed  when  the  full  effects  of  the  protective  systeip  were 
felt  will  appear  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  For  the  present  it  sufGces  to  say 
that  there  is  no  example  in  the  history  of  any  country,  of  a  greater  change 
and  improvement  following  the  adoption  of  protection  than  is  found  in 
the  history  of  this  people.  In  the  course  of  time  every  village  and  bor- 
ough, town  and  city  in  the  whole  realm,  was  converted  into  a  bee-hive  of 
industry  where  men  and  women  found  employment,  not  only  in  making 
all  articles  for  their  own  use,  but  in  the  manufacture  of  all  sorts  of  wares, 
from  the  crudest  implements  to  the  most  delicate  and  costly  fabrics. 

Protective  legislation,  having  its  beginning  in  the  exclusion  of 
foreigners  from  the  retail  trade  of  the  country,  was  extended  later  to  the 
development  of  a  great  variety  of  domestic  industries.  The  first  idea 
seems  to  have  been,  to  keep  their  wool  at  home  to  build  up  their  woolen 
industries  and  turn  the  labor  of  Englishmen  to  providing  their  own  people 
with  cloth.  As  we  have  seen,  English  wool  had  hitherto  been  exported 
to  Flanders  and  returned  in  the  form  of  cloth,  with  the  labor  and  profits 
of  the  Flemish  added.  The  interference  of  aliens  with  the  retail  trade  of 
the  merchants  of  London  was  very  injurious.  The  foreign  importer,  by 
bringing  the  wares  into  the  countn,^  could  demand  whatever  price  he  saw 
fit.  The  monopoly  thus  held  excluded  the  citizens  of  London  from  a  par- 
ticipation in  trade.  The  policy  of  interference  of  the  government  in 
behalf  of  its  own  citizens  was  most  wise  and  just.  If  governments  are 
ordained  for  the  protection  of  property,  one  of  their  first  duties  is  to  make 
it  possible  for  their  own  citizens  to  acquire  property. 

When  we  contrast  the  result  of  this  policy  with  the  encouragement 
given  to  the  Flemish,  Germans  and  Italians  to  bring  their  wares  into 
England,  resulting  in  giving  employment  to  the  artisans  of  those  coun- 
tries, the  investment  of  capital  and  building  up  of  industrial  centres  on 
the  Continent,  instead  of  in  England,  we  can  readily  .see  why  Holland 
and  Flanders  became  rich  and  powerful,  while  England  remained  poor 
and  her  people  unskilled  and  degraded.  The  excessive  rate  of  interest 
and  the  galling  exactions  of  the  Florentine  bankers  had  undoubtedly 
taught  Edward  how  impolitic  it  always  is  for  a  nation  to  rely  upon  for- 
eigners in  time  of  need.  The  English  must,  at  this  time,  have  been 
reduced  to  a  very  low  financial  condition,  when  her  ruler  was  compelled 
to  pawn  his  crown  jewels  to  raise  money.  The  very  coin  that  he  bor- 
rowed on  the  Continent  might  have  been  drawn  from  the  English  people 
and  drained  from  the  country  by  the  free  trade  policy  which  prevailed. 


Govern' 
mental  in- 
terference. 


'rt-e  trade 


EARLY  ENGLAND. 


The  very  fact  that  it  was  necessary  to  bring  skilled  artisans  from  foreign 
lands  to  teach  the  English  people  the  arts  of  industry  shows  how  a  people 
under  a  system  of  free  trade  will  cling  to  rural  pursuits  without  any  desire 
or  ambition  to  embark  in  new  enterprises.  Such  foreign  competition  was 
then,  as  it  has  been  in  all  countries  when  given  full  sway,  a  perpetual 
blight  upon  home  industry.  Edward's  proud  spirit  undoubtedly  felt 
keenly  the  inferior  position  in  wealth  and  industrial  life  of  his  own  peo- 
ple. When  English  monarchs  grasped  the  great  economic  truth  that  they 
should  favor  their  own  people  against  strangers  in  every  department  of 
trade  in  which  they  were  at  a  disadvantage,  the  problem  of  English  suprem- 
acy was  solved.  Although  this  great  principle  was  not  fully  appreciated 
and  embodied  in  a  comprehensive  industrial  code  and  national  policy 
until  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  yet  successive  monarchs  and  parlia- 
ments sufficiently  recognized  its  application  to  the  conditions  of  the  Eng- 
lish people,  to  make  a  steady  progress  under  its  beneficent  influence.  The 
intervention  of  wars,  both  foreign  and  internal,  between  the  time  of 
Edward  IV.  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  left  little  room  for  industrial  activity. 
It  was  during  this  period  that  the  wars  between  the  houses  of  York  and 
L,ancaster  plunged  the  nobility  into  a  fierce  struggle  for  the  crown.  The 
establishment  of  the  Church  of  England  by  Henry  VIII.,  his  suppression 
of  the  mona.steries  and  seizure  of  the  property  of  the  Roman  Catholics, 
disarranged  the  business  affairs  of  the  realm  with  injurious  results.  The 
struggle  between  Catholics  and  Protestants,  which  continued  to  the  time 
of  Queen  Elizabeth,  prevented  a  rapid  industrial  development  under  this 
policy.  At  times  and  for  long  periods  it  was  almost  wholly  lost  sight  of. 
The  system  of  collecting  revenues  and  enforcing  prohibitions  on  imports 
was  so  imperfect  that  smuggling  was  constanty  and  persistently  indulged 
in.  Besides  this  it  was  not  until  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  centur}- 
that  England  had  become  strong  enough  to  defy  foreigners  and  take 
from  the  Hanseatic  League  its  privileges. 


PART  III. 
MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Protective  Policy  of  Great  Britain  from  1558  to  1800  and 
What  It  Teaches. 

"A  wise  man  will  make  more  opportunities  than  he  finds." — Bacon. 

The  S3^stem  of  protection  gradually  ripened  into  a  settled  national 
policy,  which  continued  from  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth  uninterrupted 
and  persistently  strengthened  at  every  point  until  1846,  when  it  was  in 
the  main  abandoned.  England  was  not,  however,  without  political 
parties  and  bitter  controversies  over  policies  and  forms  of  government 
took  place.  From  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  until  the  latter  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  the  main  question  was  whether  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  realm  was  vested  in  the  king  by  divine  right  or  rested  in  that  great 
body  of  English  freemen  represented  by  the  House  of  Commons.  This 
question  was  ultimately  .settled  by  a  resort  to  arms.  It  brought  Charles  I. 
to  the  block,  established  the  commonwealth,  and  ultimately  placed  it  in 
the  power  of  the  people  of  England  by  an  act  of  succession  to  choose  their 
own  ruler,  make  their  laws  and  establish  for  themselves  a  form  of  govern- 
ment. But  through  all  this  controversy,  there  was  one  question  upon 
which  the  English  people  were  agreed.  It  mattered  not  what  party  was 
in  power,  whether  Puritans  or  Royalists,  Whigs  or  Tories,  the  industrial 
development  of  England  by  a  system  of  protective  tariffs,  navigation  laws 
and  governmental  regulations  was  recognized  as  the  best  means  of  secur- 
ing commercial  and  industrial  greatness.  A  spirit  of  loyalty  to  Eng- 
land and  to  Englishmen  per\'aded  all  classes  of  people  and  found  expres- 
sion in  deeds  of  bravery  and  heroism  on  land  and  sea,  in  defending  and 
extending  their  dominions,  building  up  their  industries,  and  making  the 
power  and  name  of  England  supreme  in  the  world. 

The  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  which  began  in  1558  and  closed  in 
1603,  forms  one  of  the  most  important  commercial  epochs  in  the  history 
of  the  country.  The  most  renowned  in  literature,  it  should  be  no  less 
distinguished  for  the  influences  exerted  on  trade  and  commerce.  This 
was  the  age  of  Shakespeare  and  Lord  Bacon,  two  of  the  greatest  men  of 
all  time.  As  a  statesman,  jurist  and  philosopher,  Lord  Bacon  is  without 
(59) 


3I0DERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

a  peer.  Undoubtedly  his  genius  gave  form  and  order  to  the  national  policy 
of  protection,  which  hitherto  had  been  indefinite  and  unstable.  At  this 
time  the  legislation  of  preceding  reigns  was  gathered  together,  re-enacted 
and  formed  into  a  comprehensive,  industrial  code,  having  for  its  specific 
purpose  the  development  of  all  branches  of  productive  industry  and  com- 
merce. The  purpose  of  such  a  policy  is  disclosed  in  the  several  branches 
of  industrial  life,  which  were  sought  to  be  specifically  regulated  and  fos- 
tered by  the  following  legislation  : 

1.  The  Statute  of  Apprentices  or  Laborers. 

2.  Poor  Laws. 

3.  Protection  to  Agriculture  and  Manufacturing. 

4.  Encouragement  of  Fisheries. 

5.  Encouragement  of  Shipping  and  the  Extension  of  Foreign 

Trade. 

While  all  these  important  branches  received  legislative  sanction 
and  recognition  at  this  time,  the  policy  thereby  definitely  begun  was 
not  only  adhered  to  by  successive  English  administrations,  but  was 
constantly  strengthened  and  improved  upon,  until  every  country  on  the 
face  of  the  globe  felt  its  influence,  and  England  became  the  richest  com- 
mercial nation  in  Christendom.  It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  consideration  that 
the  supremacy  of  England  was  reached  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, before  the  Napoleonic  wars.  The  navigation  laws  passed  in  the 
time  of  Cromwell  were  the  crowning  acts  of  this  series  of  industrial  legis- 
lation, having  for  their  definite  purpose  the  establishment  of  industries 
and  the  expansion  of  trade  and  commerce. 

The  "Statute  of  Apprentices"  or  "Laborers,"  as  it  is  sometimes 
called,  passed  bj'  parliament  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  reign'  of  Elizabeth, 
continued  in  force  from  1563  to  1825.  While  it  cannot  be  commended  in 
all  respects,  it  can  be  approved  in  some.  It  throws  much  light  upon  the 
statesmanship  and  sound  economic  ideas  which  prevailed.  The  necessity 
of  finding  employment  for  labor,  at  good  wages,  and  the  regard  which 
everj'  well-regulated  state  should  have  for  the  welfare  of  its  artisans,  were 
certainly  comprehended  by  the  statesmen  of  this  period.  Although  the 
means  by  which  it  was  sought  to  accomplish  such  a  result  were  ineftectual, 
and  in  some  respects  unwise,  yet  the  misery  and  degradation  inflicted 
upon  the  artisans  of  a  country  by  a  depression  of  wages  are  so  necessary 
to  be  avoided,  that  experiments  of  this  character  should  be  treated  with 
great  consideration  by  those  who  are  unable  to  understand  fully  the  con- 
ditions under  which  production  was  carried  on  and  subsistence  procured 
at  this  time. 

One  of  the  chief  purposes  of  this  enactment  was  to  secure  an  increase 
in  the  wages  of  laborers  which  could  not  be  obtained  under  the  old 
statutes.     This  is  expressly  stated  in  the  preamble,  as  follows: 

^  5th,  Elizabeth,  c.  4. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


Chiefly  for  that  the  wages  and  allowances  limited  and  rated  in  many  of  the  said 
statutes,  are  in  diverse  places  too  small  and  not  answerable  to  this  time  respecting 
the  advancement  of  prices  of  all  things  belonging  to  the  said  servants  and  laborers, 
the  said  laws  cannot  conveniently  without  the  great  grief  and  burden  of  the  poor 
laborer  and  hired  man  be  put  in  good  and  due  execution. 

This  effort  to  improve  the  condition  of  labor  by  governmental  aid 
has  been  most  severely  criticised  by  recent  English  writers,  and  especially 
by  those  who  advocate  free  trade.  They  condemn  not  only  the  specific 
details  of  this  legislation,  but  the  whole  policy  under  which  conditions 
favorable  to  artisans  were  brought  about.  When  we  come  later  to  contrast 
the  effect  of  free  competition  on  English  industries,  during  the  past  twenty- 
seven  years,  with  the  marvelous  development  and  improvement  which 
followed  the  legislation  under  Elizabeth,  the  discredit  will  be  ca.st  upon 
those  who  regard  low  wages  as  an  economic  advantage  to  acountrj-.  The 
legislation  in  question  attempted  to  regulate  the  whole  system  of  appren- 
ticeship, wages,  terms  of  employment  and  length  of  day's  labor  in  agri- 
culture and  manufacturing.  Instead  of  leaving  the  question  of  wages  to 
be  settled  by  free  competition  or  free  contract,  entered  into  between  the 
employed  and  employer,  it  provided  that  justices  of  the  peace  should  meet 
on  or  before  the  tenth  of  June  of  each  year  to  fix  the  rate  of  wages  to  be 
paid  during  the  ensuing  season.  The  statute  says,  the  justices  of  the 
peace,  after  fixing  the  time  of  their  meeting,  "  calling  to  them  such 
discreet  and  grave  persons,  as  they  shall  think  meet,  and  conferring  together 
respecting  the  plenty  or  scarcity  of  the  times,  and  other  circumstances 
necessary  to  be  considered,"  shall  limit  and  appoint  the  wages  for  every 
kind  of  manual  labor  skilled  or  unskilled,  by  the  year,  week  or  day,  and 
with  or  without  allowance  of  food.  It  was  made  a  penal  offence  to  pay 
less  wages  than  those  fixed  by  the  magistrates.  This  portion  of  the 
statute,  however,  which  vested  justices  of  the  peace  with  power  to  fix 
wages,  became  a  dead  letter,  although  it  remained  unrepealed  until  1825. 
But  few  instances  are  found  in  which  it  was  ever  acted  upon.  The 
reason  is  undoubtedly  the  general  improvement  of  the  masses,  and  the 
increase  of  wages  which  followed.  As  opportunities  for  work  increased 
and  new  fields  opened  for  the  investment  of  capital  in  manufacturing, 
shipping  and  agriculture,  the  demand  for  labor  tended  to  prevent  the 
occurrence  of  the  conditions  which  were  sought  to  be  alleviated  through 
the  statute. 

The  statute  also  provided  a  seven  years'  apprenticeship  for  artisans, 
and  authorized  an  agriculturalist  to  take  a  boy  and  instruct  him  in  farm 
labor,  until  he  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years.  Every  master 
who  had  three  apprentices  was  required  to  employ  at  least  one  journeyman 
for  each  extra  apprentice.  The  statute  was  designed  to  secure  stability 
and  permanence  of  employment.  Terms  of  service  were  fixed  and  penalties 
imposed  upon  laborers  for  quitting  within  the  limitations,  as  well  as  upon 


Attempt  t 
fix  rate  o, 
wages. 


Attempt  t, 
of  employ- 


3IODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION 


Necessify 
of  leg i da- 


of  III  I. 
policy 


employers  for  dismissing  a  servant  before  his  time  had  expired.  At  the 
termination  of  employment,  the  master  was  required  to  give  the  emplo}'ed 
a  certificate  of  approval,  and  no  laborer  could  apply  for  work  in  another 
parish  excepting  upon  presentation  of  such  writing  from  his  former 
employer.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  enter  upon  a  description  of  the 
minute  details  of  this  statute,  or  show  its  application  to  the  various  classes 
of  workmen,  such  as  clerks  in  stores  and  mechanics.  It  is  sufficient  to 
present  only  its  general  features  relating  to  the  means  by  which  the  mass 
of  ignorant,  crude  laborers  of  England  were  transformed  into  skilled  and 
efficient  artisans.  The  conditions  were  such  that  a  resort  to  extreme 
measures  was  necessary.  The  number  of  beggars,  paupers  and  idlers 
was  so  great  that  governmental  interference  in  directing  their  energies, 
moulding  and  developing  their  faculties  and  fostering  a  diversity  of 
industries  in  which  they  might  find  employment,  w-as  justified  upon  the 
ground  of  public  policy  as  well  as  upon  sound  economic  principles.  If  they 
had  continued  on  free  trade  lines  and  been  permitted  to  take  their  own 
course  unaided  and  undirected,  England  would  have  remained  the  most 
barbarous,  weak  and  defenceless  country  in  Europe.  If  they  had  con- 
tinued to  exchange  agricultural  products  for  the  wares  made  by  the  labor 
of  the  Continent,  the  people  would  have  been  powerless  to  improve  their 
condition  and  serfdom,  poverty  and  degradation  would  have  been  per- 
petual. Such  free  trade  policy  would  have  been  a  continual  check  on 
ambition,  a  hindrance  to  progress,  and  the  free  trade  maxim  that  the 
"fear  of  want  is  the  spur  to  exertion"  would  then  have  had  full  play. 
The  energies  and  faculties  which  make  a  people  independent  and  opulent 
would  never  have  been  aroused.  But  the  English  people  at  this  time  were 
attempting  to  develop  their  best  faculties  and  to  secure  good  workman- 
ship, and  excellence  in  quality  and  design  of  wares.  Her  artisans  must 
be  educated  and  disciplined.  The  .system  of  apprenticeship,  enforced  bj' 
law,  was  undoubtedly  beneficial  in  securing  that  body  of  skilled  mechanics 
and  artisans  which  in  later  years  made  England  so  famous  for  the  variety 
and  beauty  of  her  merchandise.  Besides,  this  policy  was  in  practice 
during  a  period  when  manufacturing  was  carried  on  largely  by  hand  in 
small  establishments,  and  before  the  introduction  of  machinery  and  the 
vast  factory  system  which  now  prevails.  This  enactment  at  the  time  was 
intended  to  apply  to  all  industries  and  every  part  of  the  realm.  As  years 
rolled  on,  as  conditions  changed,  new  industries  were  introduced  and 
corporations  formed,  which  were  held  to  be  not  within  its  operations. 
During  the  eighteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  before 
the  final  repeal  of  the  statute  of  laborers,  there  were  in  existence  in  Eng- 
land, being  carried  on  side  by  side,  two  .systems  of  production  :  the  one 
regulated  by  the  Act  of  1563,  the  other  consisting  partly  of  the  system  of 
apprenticeship,  and  partly  of  arrangements  made  between  employer  and 
employed,  under  free  contract.     We  shall  later  see  the  application  of  the 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


doctrine  of  free  contract  to  the  conditions  existing  in  England  in  the  early 
part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when  the  agitation  of  free  trade  was  begun. 
No  sooner  had  the  statutes,  which  secured  to  the  laborer  certain  protection 
against  their  employers,  been  repealed,  and  the  artisans  of  England 
thrown  back  upon  their  own  resources  and  left  to  shift  wholly  for  them- 
selves, than  labor  organizations  came  into  existence,  and  commenced  an 
agitation  for  a  regulation  of  hours  of  labor,  a  restriction  on  the  employ- 
ment of  women  and  children,  and  enforced  sanitary  regulations  of  factor- 
ies through  inspectors  appointed  by  the  government.  We  shall  be  able 
to  trace  some  of  the  elements  of  a  system  of  labor  protection  from  the 
craft  guilds  through  the  legislation  of  Elizabeth,  finally  culminating  in 
the  labor  laws  now  on  the  statute  book  in  England,  placed  there,  however, 
under  the  protests  of  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  free  trade. 

The  lack  of  business  experience  and  the  low  standard  of  morals  and 
integrity  which  prevailed  at  this  time,  encouraged  all  manner  of  frauds, 
cheating  in  weight,  quality  and  size  of  goods  put  up  for  sale.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  dishonesty  should  prevail  among  business  men,  when 
kings  had  set  the  example  by  engaging  in  the  most  dastardly  practice  of 
debasing  the  coins  of  the  realm  and  repudiating  national  debts.  To  raise 
the  standard  of  business  integrity,  to  give  to  English  goods  a  name  and  to 
prevent  fraud  and  secure  good  workmanship,  fineness  and  excellence  of 
quality,  the  whole  manufacturing  system  was  placed  under  the  supervision 
of  government  inspectors.  England  at  this  time,  it  should  be  noted,  was 
attempting  to  establish  an  industrial  system  in  competition  with  the  Dutch 
and  Flemish,  whose  goods  not  only  monopolized  all  foreign  markets,  but 
had  acquired  a  reputation  which  procured  for  them  a  ready  sale  everywhere. 
The  very  name  of  Flemish  goods  gave  their  producers  an  advantage  over 
all  others.  It  was  to  meet  this  opposition  and  to  establish  a  similar  repu- 
tation, that  the  English  Government  adopted  most  stringent  means  to 
secure  honest  weights  and  measures  and  good  faith  in  everything  offered 
for  sale.  The  abuse  of  this  system  by  subsequent  monarchs,  in  farming 
it  out  under  licenses  granted  to  persons  and  corporations  who  derived 
large  profits  therefrom,  affords  no  valid  objection  to  the  policy  itself, 
which  undoubtedly  contributed  largely  to  a  proper  direction  and  control 
of  the  English  producers  in  securing  that  foreign  trade  from  which  they 
derived  in  later  years  such  immense  profits. 

Prior  to  the  reign  of  Elizabeth, the  poor  of  the  realm  were  supported 
wholly  by  private  charities.  From  the  earliest  times,  after  the  conversion 
of  England  to  the  Christian  religion,  the  poor  had  been  regarded  as  the 
wards  of  the  Church.  The  monasteries  were  for  centuries  the  places  from 
which  they  were  cared  for  and  fed.  The  destruction  of  these  religious 
institutions  by  Henry  VIII.,  and  the  confiscation  of  their  property  for  a 
time,  left  the  unfortunate  of  the  realm  in  the  most  helpless  condition.  It 
was  not,  however,  until  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth  that  the  government 


Inspection 
of  goods — 
.\'eed  of 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


JPromotion 
of  native 
industries. 


took  upon  itself  the  duty  of  regulating  and  enforcing  a  relief  of  the 
destitute  of  the  country.  By  an  act  of  parliament,  '  the  care  of  the  poor 
was  imposed  as  a  burden  upon  the  land  of  the  several  parishes  of  the  realm. 
The  bishops  of  the  Church  were  given  jurisdiction  to  enforce  its  regula- 
tions. Laws  were  immediately  enacted  imposing  a  more  complete  enforce- 
ment of  its  provisions,  by  the  levying  of  assessments  and  by  the  sale  of 
goods  to  enforce  the  collection  of  rates  from  those  who  refused  to  pay. 
Many  provisions  of  these  statutes  and  amendments  intended  to  provide 
for  the  employment  of  the  idle,  to  punish  those  who  were  able  but  refused 
to  work,  and  to  suppress  vagrancy-,  proved  ineffectual. 

At  the  time  of  Henry  VII.  and  Henry  VIII.,  says  Mr.  Cunningham, 
"The  able-bodied  tramp  who  had  no  employment  was  the  chief  difficulty. 
In  the  seventeenth  century  we  hear  less  of  this  evil  excepting  so  far  as  it 
was  directly  due  to  war."  ^  By  an  act  of  settlement  the  pauper  class  was 
distributed  proportionately  among  the  several  pari.shes  of  the  realm.  This 
practically  prohibited  or  prevented  those  seeking  emploj-ment,  or  who 
might  become  paupers,  from  shifting  from  one  part  of  the  kingdom  to 
another.  A  new  arrival  in  the  parish  would  at  any  time  within  forty  days 
be  returned  by  the  poor  authorities  to  the  parish  from  which  he  came. 
The  purpose  of  the  Poor  L,aw  enacted  at  this  time  was  to  afford  relief  for 
the  lame,  sick  and  those  unable  to  work,  and  to  encourage  habits  of 
industry  in  the  able-bodied.  A  more  extended  view  of  the  Poor  Laws  will 
be  found  in  Chapter  VI.  of  Part  IV. 

The  following  quotation  from  the  "Growth  of  English  Industries," 
is  so  concise  and  authentic,  that  but  little  is  left  to  be  said  on  this  branch 
of  the  subject: 

It  is  unnecessary  to  describe  in  any  detail  the  industrial  policy  which  Elizabeth 
pursued;  in  its  main  outlines  it  was  protectionist  and  utilized  the  various  expe- 
dients which  had  been  already  tried  and  had  been  deemed  successful. 

a.  The  importation  of  finished  goods  from  abroad  was  prohibited  early  in  her 
reign;  the  list  of  articles  to  be  excluded  is  not  as  lengthy  as  that  in  the  statutes  of 
Edward  IV.  or  Richard  III. ,  and  consists  for  the  most  part  of  cutlery  and  small 
hardware  goods ;  but  the  principle  of  action  is  precisely  similar  to  that  of  preceding 
monarchs,  and  the  preamble  urges  the  old  pleas,  in  the  encouragement  given  to  the 
artisans  abroad  and  the  consequent  enrichment  of  other  realms  while  our  own  work- 
men were  unemployed. 

b.  The  exportation  of  unmanufactured  products,  whicll  might  be  worked  up  at 
home,  was  also  restricted.  The  English  wool  was,  of  course,  the  mainstay  of  the 
manufacturers  of  the  realm,  and  it  was  desirable  to  retain  the  English  breed  of 
sheep;  in  consequence  a  very  severe  measure  was  passed  in  1566,  and  those  who 
exported  .sheep  or  lambs  alive  were  liable  to  lose  a  hand  for  the  first  offence,  while 
a  second  was  adjudged  a  felony.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  enacted  that  no  Kentish 
or  Suffolk  cloth  was  to  be  exported  unless  it  was  wrought  and  dressed,  and  that  for 
every  nine  unwronght  cloths  sent  from  other  parts  of  England,  one  dressed  cloth 
should  be  sent  abroad. 

'  43d.  Eliz.        !  GrowUi  of  Kng.  Itul.,  Vol.  n.,  pp.  200-201. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


i.  Another  mode  of  encouraging  native  industry  was  by  trying  to  promote  the 
consumption  of  English  manufactures.  -During  the  whole  of  the  Tudor  period 
there  w;is  frequent  interference  in  regard  to  the  cappers.  Henry  VIII.  had  tried  to 
regulate  the  trade;  while  Elizabeth  insisted  that  her  subjects  should  wear  English 
made  caps.  The  trade  had  apparently  been  very  extensive ;  London  alone  had 
maintained  Sooo  workers,  and  it  had  also  been  practiced  in  Exeter,  Bristol,  Mon- 
mouth, Hereford,  Bridgenorth,  Bevvdley,  Gloucester,  Worcester,  Chester,  Nantwich, 
Alcester,  Stafford,  Lichfield,  Coventry,  York,  Richmond,  Beverly,  Derby,  Leicester, 
Northampton,  Shrewsbury,  Wellington,  Southampton,  Canterbury  and  elsewhere; 
the  division  of  employment  had  been  carried  very  far  in  this  science  of  capping 
for  carders,  spinners,  knitters,  parters  of  wool,  forcers,  thickers,  drepers, 
walkers,  dyers,  battlers,  shearers,  prepers,  edgers,  liners  and  bandmakers  all  are 
mentioned ;  but  it  was  alleged  that  people  had  left  off  wearing  caps,  that  many 
who  had  been  busily  occupied  were  thrown  into  beggary,  and  that  there  were 
fewer  personable  men  to  serve  the  Queen  in  time  of  war.  On  every  Sunday  and 
holy  day,  every  person  of  six  years  and  upwards,  with  some  few  exceptions,  was  to 
wear  on  his  head  one  cap  of  wool  fully  wrought  in  England,  and  if  he  neglected  to 
do  so  was  to  pay  a  fine  of  three  and  four  pence  for  each  offence.' 

In  the  fifth  year  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  a  statute  was  passed, con- 
tinuing in  force  the  acts  of  Henry  VII.  and  Henry  VIII.,  which  had  been 
enacted  to  prevent  the  system  of  enclosure  from  being  carried  to  any 
further  extent;  but  in  1592  this  policy  was  abandoned  and  the  land- 
owners were  again  permitted  to  take  their  own  course.  The  result  was 
that  large  tracts  were  fenced  in  and  the  displacement  of  the  agricultural 
population  was  renewed.  The  injurious  effect  upon  agriculture  was  so 
quickly  felt,  that  in  1597  the  old  laws  were  revived,  and  it  was  provided 
that  the  land  which  had  been  turned  into  pasture  since  the  repeal  of  the 
old  law,  .should  be  restored  to  tillage. 

The  laws  in  regard  to  the  export  of  wheat  were  somewhat  changed. 
Under  Elizabeth,  export  of  wheat  was  permitted  when  it  was  worth  ten 
shillings  a  quarter,  and  prohibited  when  the  price  reached  twenty  shill- 
ings a  quarter.  This  act  was  passed  in  1592.'  Prior  to  that  time,  since  the 
reign  of  Philip  and  Mary,  the  export  of  wheat  was  allowed  when  the  price 
was  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  a  quarter.  The  improved  condition  of 
agriculture  is  shown  by  a  writing  by  Dymock  in  1650,  who  says,  that  "In 
Queen  Elizabeth's  day  good  husbandry  began  to  take  place."  It  should 
be  noted  that  the  statute  passed  under  the  reign "  provided  that  a  cow 
should  be  kept,  and  a  calf  raised  for  every  sixty  sheep.  In  the  forty-third 
year  of  Elizabeth,  laws  were  passed  to  effect  a  drainage  of  fens  and  low 
lands,  and  to  reclaim  for  agriculture  a  large  amount  of  manshy  land  which 
had  been  untillable. 

An  incidental  proof  of  the  prosperity  of  agriculture  is  to  be  found  in  the 
gradual  increase  of  rents,  on  which  Professor  Thorold  Rogers  lays  considerable 
stress.  This  rise  was  not  like  the  enhancement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  which 
seems   to   have   been  due  to  the  increased  value  of    unimproved  land  for   grazing 


Growth  of  Eng. 


11..  pp.  33-< 


:35th,  Elii 


'  2d  and  3d,  Philip  aud 


MODERN  EXGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


purposes ;  but  it  followed  in  consequence  of  actual  improvements,  especially,  as  Best 
notes,  of  enclosing  pastures. ' 

The  lands  iu  the  pastures  weere  (att  my  father's  first  comminge)  letten  to  our 
owne  tenants  and  others  for  2s.  a  lande ;  afterwards  for  2s.  6d.  a  lande,  and  lastly 
for  3s.  a  lande;  but  nowe  being  enclosed  they  will  let  for  thrice  as  much.^ 

The  legislation  relating  to  the  fisheries  performed  the  double  purpose 
of  giving  encouragement  to  industry  and  causing  an  increase  of  shipping, 
intending  thereby  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  the  realm.  The  fisheries 
were  made  a  nursery  for  Briti.sh  seamen.  Edward  VI.'  had  withdrawn 
the  aid  formerly  given  to  shipping,  but  these  laws  were  revived  and 
enforced  with  great  vigor  by  Elizabeth.  In  1563  it  was  forbidden  to  bring 
wine  from  Gascony  in  foreign  ships.*  Fish  caught  by  Englishmen  with 
English  vessels  were  exempt  from  custom  duties  and  all  tolls  and  tax  of 
landing  the  fish.  The  act^  which  made  it  obligatory  upon  all  subjects  to 
catfish  on  Friday  and  Saturday,  was  amended  in  1563  by  adding  Wednes- 
day as  another  fish  day.  Although  the  act  on  its  face  was  ostensibly 
passed  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  piety  and  religious  observance,  it 
was  really  a  piece  of  commercial  legislation. 

By  an  act  of  Elizabeth's  reign, ''  fishermen  were  exempt  from  service 
as  soldiers.  Section  10  of  the  same  act  prohibited  foreigners  from  bring- 
ing cod  and  herring  into  the  country,  and  admitted  free  of  duty  those 
caught  by  Englishmen. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  centurj^  England  became  an 
asylum  for  those  Flemish  and  Dutch  artisans  who  fled  from  the  religious 
persecutions  and  warfare  of  the  Continent.  This  was  a  most  important 
episode  in  the  industrial  history  of  England.  Partly  from  religious  sym- 
pathy, partly  from  the  importance  which  the  English  people  were  then 
attaching  to  the  development  of  their  industries,  these  refugees  were  made 
welcome.  It  was  fully  realized  that,  at  this  time,  they  were  greatly 
needed,  not  only  to  establish  their  industries  in  the  kingdom,  but  also  to 
instruct  Englishmen  in  the  mysteries  of  the  various  arts  of  manufactur- : 
ing,  which  had  been  carried  on  in  the  Netherlands.  The  immigrants 
were  allotted  to  different  towns  by  the  government,  under  the  direction 
of  the  privy  council,  these  towns  having,  in  most  cases,  petitioned  the 
privy  council,  that  they  might  settle  in  them. 

In  1 56 1  Sandwich  received  twenty -five  clothmakers  and  their  families. 
The  manufacture  of  cloth  known  as  new  drapery  was  begun  in  Norwich 
in  1665,  by  thirty  of  these  refugees.  Other  settlements  were  made  at 
Stanford,  Halstead,  l,ynn  and  Dover,  and  also  at  Colchester  and  London. 
The  weaving  of  linen  was  begun,  and  the  making  of  needles,  parchment, 
sack  cloth  and  many  other  articles  was  introduced  into  England  by  these 


SRural  Economy  in  Yorkshire  in  1641.  V-  "9- 
I.       s  2d  and  3d,  Edw.  VI.,  c.  19.       «5th,b;iii. 


1  Crowl 

h  of 

KnR.  I 

Id. 

and  Com., 

»5tll 

and  6th 

Edw 

18. 

<5th  Eli 

c.  5- 

sec.  II. 

GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


people.  Again,  in  16S5,  Louis  XIV.  revoked  the  Edict  of  Nantes  and 
opened  a  war  of  persecution  against  the  Protestants.  It  is  estimated  that 
five  hundred  thousand  Protestants  fled  and  sought  refuge  in  Germany  and 
other  Protestant  countries.  This  was  one  of  the  severest  blows  ever 
inflicted  upon  the  industries  of  France,  as  the  Huguenots  were  largel}- 
artisans  and  manufacturers,  who  were  placing  France  among  the  manu- 
facturing nations  of  the  world,  and  laying  a  foundation  for  that  industrial 
career  which  has  always  contributed  so  greatly  to  the  wealth  and  pros- 
perity of  a  country.  It  is  estimated  that  England  received  about  fifty 
thousand  of  these  people.  Charles  I.  and  James  II.  issued  edicts  which 
permitted  them  to  become  naturalized  citizens  of  England.  Those 
coming  from  Normandy  and  Brittany  settled  largely  in  the  suburbs  of 
London,  others  in  Coventry,  Sandwich,  Southampton,  Winchelsea,  Dover 
and  Wadsworth.  They  engaged  in  making  silk,  linen,  paper,  clocks, 
glass,  ].ocks,  surgical  instruments,  and  many  other  articles  requiring  a 
high  order  of  skill  and  artistic  taste. 

By  a  system  of  protection  the  foundation  had  been  laid  for  a  diversity 
of  industries,  through  which  the  English  people  could  not  only  .supply 
their  own  wants,  but  produce  a  surplus  by  the  exchange  of  which  they 
could  supply  themselves  with  the  necessaries  and  luxuries  of  all  countries. 
England  was  so  situated  that  great  wealth  could  not  be  reached  and  a 
high  development  of  her  people  attained,  without  large  exchanges  with 
other  countries.  While  she  was  well  suited  to  the  growth  of  wheat, 
cereals  and  vegetables,  she  must  always  buy  tea,  coffee,  spices,  tropical 
fruits,  sugar,  rice  and  many  other  food  products.  Dye  stuffs  and  many 
raw  materials  must  also  be  purchased  in  other  countries,  in  order  to 
expand  extensively  certain  branches  of  manufacturing.  Although  at  this 
time,  it  could  not  have  been  foreseen  that  cotton,  wool,  vegetable  fibres, 
rubber  and  many  other  raw  materials  would  be  brought  from  distant 
regions  into  England,  there  to  be  worked  up  and  reshipped  in  the  form 
of  finished  products,  enough  was  known  of  foreign  commerce  to  give  the 
English  people  a  conception  of  the  vast  and  profitable  foreign  trade  which 
thereby  might  be  secured.  As  a  purely  agricultural  country  little  ship- 
ping was  needed,  but  in  order  fully  to  round  out  the  nation's  life  and  give 
full  play  to  all  energies  and  faculties  of  her  people  in  those  lines  which 
were  then  in  sight,  a  combination  of  home  and  foreign  trade  was  made  neces- 
sary. The  English  people  were  most  fortunately  situated.  Surrounded 
by  splendid  harbors,  secure  from  foreign  invasions,  with  a  powerful  navy, 
their  domestic  industries  could  enjoy  uninterrupted  peace  at  home.  The 
New  World  had  been  discovered  and  that  system  of  colonization  by  which 
a  portion  of  the  population  of  the  Old  World  was  transferred  to  the  New 
was  just  beginning.  The  people  who  were  invading  the  wilds  of  the  new 
hemisphere  could  not  easily  take  with  them  the  means  of  establishing 
industries.     They  must  for  a  long  time  at  least,  look  to  the  Old  World  for 


MODEllK  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

their  clothing,  tools,  implements  and  many  other  articles  of  necessity. 
The  Dutch  and  Flemish  were  the  only  people  capable  of  meeting  these 
new  demands  of  trade,  which  were  constantly  arising.  English  states- 
men, especially  Lord  Bacon  and  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  foresaw  the  advan- 
tages which  would  accrue  to  England  Ijy  stepping  in  and  acquiring  a 
share  of  this  commerce.  Up  to  this  time  no  efforts  had  been  made  on 
the  part  of  England  to  extend  her  foreign  trade.  When  she  conceived 
the  plan  of  employing  her  own  labor,  in  making  implements  and  clothing 
for  other  countries,  she  at  once  entered  upon  that  policy  which  has 
made  her  great.  We  have  seen  how  powerless  her  people  were  to 
compete  successfully  with  the  Dutch  and  Flemish  in  the  production  of 
manufactured  goods  under  free  trade,  that  it  was  only  by  imposing 
restrictions  and  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  wares,  that  the  atten- 
tion of  her  own  people  could  be  turned  in  that  direction.  Instead  of 
exporting  wool  she  soon  became  the  exporter  of  woolen  cloth.  Instead 
of  sending  coin  to  India,  with  which  to  buy  Eastern  wares  and  products, 
she  soon  began  to  send  articles  produced  in  her  own  shops  and  by  her 
own  labor.  England  saw  the  Spanish,  the  Dutch,  the  Portuguese  and 
the  French  extending  their  dominions  in  the  New  World  and  establishing 
themselves  in  India.  Stimulated  by  the  rising  power  and  greatness  of 
her  neighbors  and  ambitious  to  lift  her  own  people  to  a  high  state  of  com- 
mercial and  political  greatness,  her  attention  was  ultimately  turned  to 
foreign  trade. 

The  persevering  efforts?  of  the  Portugue.se  to  discover  a  route  to  India  by  sail- 
ing around  Africa  were  crowned  with  success  in  1497. 

And  it  may  appear  singular  that  notwithstanding  the  exaggerated  accounts  that 
had  been  prevalent  in  Europe  from  the  remotest  antiquity,  with  respect  to  the 
wealth  of  India,  and  the  importance  to  which  the  commerce  with  it  had  raised  the 
Phoenicians  and  Egyptians  in  antiquity,  the  Venetian.s  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
which  it  was  then  seen  to  confer  on  the  Portuguese,  the  latter  should  have  been 
allowed  to  monopolize  it  for  nearly  a  century  after  (1497)  it  had  been  turned  into 
a  channel  accessible  to  every  nation.' 

England's  delay  in  extending  her  trade  to  foreign  coimtries  is  fully 
accounted  for  by  her  backward  connnercial  condition,  by  her  lack  of 
wealth  and  of  ships.  It  was  the  threatened  invasion  of  England  by  Philip 
II.  of  Spain,  the  actual  peril  that  the  kingdom  was  placed  under  by  the 
Spani.sh  armada,  that  aroused  the  English  people  to  build  ships  for  naval 
defence.  The  war  between  Spain  and  England  culminated  in  the  attack 
on  England  by  the  great  Spanish  armada  in  May,  1588.  At  this  time 
the  English  fleets  consisted  of  onl>  about  two  hundred  ves.sels,  many  of 
them  coasters  and  fi.shing  craft,  which  had  hurriedly  been  converted  into 
men-of-war  for  the  occasion.  The  armada  came  with  vessels  so  powerful 
and  so  numerous,  that  an  engagement  was  avoided  by  the  English.     Their 

•  McCuUoch's  Commercial  Dictionary,  p.  536. 


GREAT  BKITAIX-S  PEOTECTIVE  POLICY. 


light  sailing  vessels  were  enabled  to  keep  at  a  distance  and  out  of  the 
reach  of  the  Spanish.  As  this,  the  most  powerful  naval  armament 
the  world  had  yet  witnessed,  sailed  up  the  British  channel,  it  was  only 
by  the  intervention  of  a  storm  which  drove  the  vessels  in  together 
against  the  coast,  where  many  were  wrecked,  that  the  English  were 
afforded  an  opportunity  to  attack  them  with  fire  ships,  and  in  their 
crippled  condition  gain  a  victory  which  was  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  history  of  the  world.  It  was  after  this  disastrous  naval 
engagement,  when  the  power  of  the  Portuguese  and  Spaniards  had  been 
broken  at  sea,  that  the  English  attempted  to  engage  in  foreign  trade. 
The  shipping  of  Spain  and  Portugal  were  subjected  to  con.stant  attacks 
by  the  Dutch  and  English,  their  merchant  vessels  seized  and  taken  as 
prizes,  and  their  maritime  power  broken.  This  left  the  Dutch  in  absolute 
possession  of  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  world,  as  described  in  the  report 
of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  subsequently  given. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the 
se\'enteenth  century,  the  foreign  policy  of  the  English  people  was  begun 
by  a  most  vigorous  and  systematic  effort  to  establish  trading  stations  and 
make  successive  voyages  to  different  parts  of  the  world,  through  trading 
companies  which  received  the  patronage  and  approval  of  the  government. 
The  English  had  avoided  a  collision  with  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
by  confining  their  maritime  ventures  to  attempts  to  find  a  northern  pas- 
sage to  India.  Failing  in  this  they  entered  upon  the  Indian  trade  by  the 
route  around  Africa.  In  1 582  Captain  Stevenson  was  the  first  Englishman 
who  sailed  around  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  examined  the  coast  of 
India.  Sir  Francis  Drake  circumnavigated  the  globe  in  1587.  In  1586 
Mr.  Thomas  Cavendish  fitted  out  an  expedition,  sailed  to  the  Indian 
Ocean  and  made  explorations  of  the  country. 

About  this  time,  a  large  ship  of  the  Portuguese  was  captured  by  Sir 
Francis  Drake  with  a  rich  cargo  of  Oriental  wares,  and  on  board  were 
found  papers  giving  a  full  account  of  the  East  India  trade.  In  1593  a 
fleet  commanded  by  Sir  John  Burroughs,  which  had  been  fitted  out  by  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh  for  tWs  trade,  captured  a  Portuguese  vessel  of  1600  tons 
burden,  carrying  700  men  and  36  brass  cannon.  When  this  ship  was 
brought  into  Dartmouth,  it  is  said  to  have  been  the  largest  .ship  yet  seen 
in  England.  Her  cargo  consisted  of  gold,  spices,  calicoes,  silks,  pearls, 
drugs,  ivory,  porcelain,  etc.  Englishmen  were  aroused  by  the  opportuni- 
ties offered  for  acquiring  large  profits  and  great  wealth.  In  1599  there 
was  formed  in  Eondon  an  association  to  engage  in  this  trade,  entitled, 
"The  Governor  and  Company  of  Merchants  of  London  Trading  in  the  East 
Indies."  It  received  a  charter  in  1600,  and  directors  were  named  in  the 
charter: 

But  power  was  given  to  the  company  to  elect  a  deputy  governor,  and  in 
future  to  elect  their  governors   and   directors,  and  such  other  officers  as  they  might 


Begin- 
nings 0/ 

foreign 


The  East 
India  Com- 


MODERN  ENGLAND  VNDER  PROTECTION. 


The  levant 
or  Turkish 
Company. 


think  fit  to  appoint.  They  were  empowered  to  make  by-laws ;  to  inflict  punishments, 
either  corporal  or  pecuniary,  provided  such  punishments  were  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  England ;  to  export  all  sorts  of  goods  free  of  duty  for  four  years,  and  to 
export  foreign  coin  or  bullion  to  the  amount  of  30,000  pounds  a  year,  6000  pounds 
of  the  same  being  previously  coined  at  the  mint;  but  they  were  obliged  to  import, 
within  six  months  after  the  completion  of  every  voyage,  except  the  first,  the  same 
quantity  of  silver,  gold  and  foreign  coin  that  they  had  exported.  The  duration  of 
the  charter  was  limited  to  a  period  of  fifteen  years.' 

This  company  opened  up  the  trade  with  India,  which  has  constantl)- 
grown  and  brought  England  immeasurable  wealth,  and  still  continues  to 
afford  the  best  market  for  her  wares.  The  authority  thus  vested  in  this 
corporation  laid  a  foundation  for  the  power  which  ultimately  extended 
British  supremacy  over  a  vast  territory  inhabited  by  over  200,000,000  of 
people.  The  charter  of  this  company  was  renewed  by  Cromwell  in  1657, 
and  confirmed  by  Charles  II.  in  1661.  Shortly  after  the  revolution  of 
1688,  the  authority  of  this  company  to  monopolize  the  Eastern  trade  was 
conferred  by  parliament.  It  secured  an  absolute  dominion  and  govern- 
ment of  the  country,  including  the  rights  of  making  war  upon  any 
people  not  of  the  Christian  religion,  "of  establishing  fortifications,  garri- 
sons and  colonies,  of  exporting  ammunition  and  stores  to  their  settlements 
dutyfree;  of  seizing  and  sending  to  England  such  British  subjects  as 
.should  be  found  trading  in  India  without  their  leave;  and  of  exercising 
civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  in  their  settlements,  according  to  the  laws 
of  England." 

It  wotild  be  out  of  place  here  to  attempt  an  historical  sketch  of  the 
renewals  of  the  charters  of  this  company,  the  extension  from  time  to  time 
of  its  powers  and  ultimately  the  establishment  of  a  government  for  India 
by  a  constitution  in  1854.  The  important  fact  connected  with  the  incor- 
poration of  this  company  is  the  light  it  throws  upon  the  vigorous  policy 
and  means  adopted  by  the  English  people,  for  extending  their  possessions 
and  opening  markets  in  foreign  countries  for  their  wares.  Mr.  McCul- 
loch  says,  "Exclusive  companies  were  then  very  generally  looked  upon 
as  the  best  instrument  for  prosecuting  most  branches  of  commerce  and 
industry. ' ' '  The  trade  of  India  was  not  thrown  open  and  made  free  to  all 
Engli.sh  merchants  until  about  1814. 

The  first  English  voyage  to  the  Mediterranean  was  made  in  1550,  by 
Captain  Bodenham,  but  the  Levantine  trade  was  not  engaged  in  until 
1581,  when  some  merchants  of  London  obtained  from  Queen  Elizabeth  a 
charter,  which  gave  them  the  exclusive  privilege  of  this  trade  for  seven 
years.  This  charter  was  renewed  in  1593,  and  again  by  James  I.,  who 
made  it  perpetual.  This  company  continued  to  hold  a  monopoly  of  the 
trade  with  Turkey  and  the  ports  of  the  Ea.stern  part  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea  until  1803. 

1  McCulloclrs  Commercial  Dictionary,  p.  537.        •  Id. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 

In  1555  a  company  of  merchants  obtained  from  Queen  Mary  the 
exclusive  right  to  trade  with  Russia  in  the  East.  This  privilege  was 
sanctioned  by  parliament  in  1556.  They  held  an  exclusive  monopoly  of 
the  trade  with  Russia,  Armenia,  Media,  Persia  and  the  Caspian  Sea.  It 
was  not  until  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  that  their  privileges 
were  taken  away  and  the  trade  was  thrown  open  to  all  English  merchants. 
It  was  provided  by  act  of  parliament,  that  they  should  employ  only  Eng- 
lish made  ships,  manned  with  a  majority  of  English  sailors.  The  ex-porta- 
tion  of  English  cloth  by  the  company  was  prohibited  unless  it  was  dyed 
iu  England. 

In  1578  a  charter  was  granted  to  the  Prussia  Eastland  Company  for 
trade  in  the  Baltic.  This  company  controlled  the  trade  of  Norway, 
Sweden,  etc.  The  privileges  of  the  Hanseatic  League  were  abolished, 
and  this  company  was  organized  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  trade  which 
for  centuries  had  been  monopolized  by  that  confederation  of  German  towns. 

To  the  Guinea  Company  was  given  the  trade  of  the  west  coast  of 
Africa.  This  is  the  company  which  subsequently  carried  on  the  slave  trade. 
In  North  America,  the  "South  Virginia  Company"  monopolized  the  trade 
of  Marj'land,  Virginia  and  Carolina,  and  the  Plymouth  adventurers,  the 
connnerce  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  New  York  and  New  England. 

Through  these  companies,  English  trading  vessels  were  sent  to  every 
portion  of  the  globe,  where  opportunities  for  traffic  and  business  enter- 
prise could  be  opened.  The  exclusive  privileges  and  arbitrary  power 
conferred  upon  these  corporations,  stimulated  ship  building  and  induced 
capitalists  to  embark  in  enterprises  which  they  otherxv'ise  would  not  have 
undertaken.  Competition  with  the  Dutch  was  everywhere  met.  The 
trade  which  properly  belonged  to  English  merchants,  it  was  found  diffi- 
cult to  wrest  from  this  rival  which  had  been  so  long  in  the  business, 
acquired  such  experience  and  gained  so  much  wealth.  The  insignificant 
position  occupied  by  England  in  foreign  trade  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  is  brought  out  very  clearly  in  a  report  made  by  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh  to  King  James  I.  in  1604,  entitled,  "Obser\-ations  Con- 
cerning the  Trade  and  Commerce  of  England  with  the  Dutch  and  Other 
Foreign  Nations." 

That  the  Dutch  and  other  petty  States  do  engross  the  transportation  of  the  mer- 
chandise of  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Turkey  and  the  East  and  West  Indies; 
all  which  they  carry  to  Denmark,  Sweden,  Poland  and  other  northern  parts, 
and  bring  back  the  bulky  commodities  of  those  northern  regions  into  the  said 
countries.  Yet,  is  England  better  situated  than  Holland  for  a  general  storehouse. 
No  sooner  does  a  dearth  happen  of  wine,  fish,  corn,  etc.,  in  England,  than  forth- 
with the  Embdeners,  Hamburgers  and  the  Hollanders,  out  of  their  storehouses,  lade 
fifty  or  one  hundred  ships  or  more,  dispersing  themselves  round  about  this  king- 
dom, and  carrying  away  great  store  of  corn  and  wealth — thus  cutting  down  our 
merchants,  and  decaying  our  navigation,  not  with  their  natural  commodities,  but 
those  of  other  countries. 


Otitcr 
coinpanii 


Report  of 
Sir  Walter 
Raleigh  on 
England's 
foreign 


3WDERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


dependence 
on  foreign 
food 
products. 


o'fFlg"sh 
ji  siting 
industry. 


Amsterdam  is  ?iever  withotU  seven  hundred  thousand  quarters  of  corn,  besides 
what  they  daily  vend,  though  none  of  it  be  of  the  growth  of  their  country ;  and  a 
dearth  of  only  one  year,  in  England,  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  etc.,  is  justly 
observed  to  enrich  Holland  for  seven  years  afterward.  In  the  last  dearth,  six 
years  ago,  in  England,  the  Hamburgers,  Embdeners  and  Hollanders  supplied  your 
kingdom  from  their  storehouses  ;  and  in  a  year  and  a  half  carried  away  from  the 
three  ports  of  Southampton,  E.reter  and  Bristol  alone,  near  tzuo  hundred  thousand 
pounds,  and  from  other  parts  of  this  kingdom,  more  particularly  including  London, 
it  cannot  be  so  little  as  tzuo  millions  of  pounds  more,  to  the  great  decay  of  your  king- 
dom, and  itnpoi'erishing  of  your  people,  discredit  and  dishonor  to  the  merchants,  and 
to  the  land. 

They  (the  Dutch)  have  a  continual  trade  into  this  kingdom,  with  five  or  six 
hundred  ships  yearly,  with  merchandise  of  other  countries,  storing  them  up  here, 
until  the  prices  rise  to  their  minds,  and  we  trade  not  with  fifty  ships  into  their  coun- 
try in  a  year. 

The  greatest  fishing  that  was  ever  known  in  the  world,  is  upon  the  coast  of 
England,  Scotland  and  Ireland  ;  but  the  great  fishery  is  there  made  by  the  Low  Coun- 
tries and  other  petty  States  wherewith  they  serve  themselves  and   all   Christendom. 

1.  Into  four  towns  in  the  Baltic,  viz.  :  Konigsberg,  Elbing,  Stettin  and 

Dantzic,  there  are  carried  and  vended  in  a  year  between  thirty  and 
fort)'  thousand  lasts  of  herrings  which  being  sold  at  but  fifteen  or 

sixteen  pounds  the  last,  is  about 620,000 

And  we  send  none. 

2.  To  Denmark,  Norway,  Sweden  and  the  ports  of   Riga,  Revel,  Nar\'a 

and  other  parts  of  Livonia,  etc.,  there  are  carried  and  vended  about 

ten  thousand  lasts,  worth 170,000 

And  li'C  send  none  thither. 

3.  The  Hollanders  send   into   Russia  fifteen   hundred   lasts  of  herrings, 

sold  at  about  thirty  shillings  per  barrel 27,000 

And  iVe  send  about  twenty  or  thirty  lasts. 

4.  To  Stade,  Hamburg,  Bremen  and   Embden,  are  carried  and  vended, 

of  fish  and  herrings,  about  six  thousand  lasts,  sold  at  about  fifteen 

or  sixteen  pounds  per  last 100,000 

And  we  send  none. 

5.  To  Cleves  and  Juliers,  up  the  Rhine,  to  Cologne  and   Frankfort-on- 

Main,  and  so  over  all  Germany  are  carried  and  vended  of  fish  and 
herrings,  near  twenty-two  thousand  lasts  sold  at  twenty  pounds  per 
last 440,000 

6.  Up    the    river   Meuse   to   Maestricht,    Liege,    etc.,    and   to   Venloo, 

Zutphen,  Deventer,  Campen,  Zwoll,  etc. ,  about  seven  thousand  lasts 

at  twenty  pounds 140,000 

And  we  none. 

7.  Guelderland,   Artois,   Hainault,   Brabant,   Flanders,  Antwerp,  and  up 

the  Scheld  all  over  the  archduke's  countries,  are  vended  between 
eight  thousand  and  nine  thousand  lasts  at  eighteen  pounds  ....  162,000 

And  -we  send  none. 

8.  The  Hollanders  and  others  carried  off  all   sorts  of  herrings  to  Rouen 

alone  in  one  year  (besides  all  other  parts  of  France),  five  thousand 

la,sts,  value 100,000 

And  zve  not  one  hundred. 

Total  sterling  money 1,759,000 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  FOLIC 


Over  and  above  these,  there  is  a  great  quantity  of  fish  vended  to  the  Straits. 
Surely  the  stream  is  necessary  to  be  turned  to  the  good  of  this  kingdom  to  whose  sea- 
coasts  alone  God  has  sent  these  great  blessings  and  immense  riches  for  us  to  take; 
and  that  atiy  nation  should  carry  away  out  of  this  kingdom  yearly,  great  masses  of 
money  for  fish  taken  in  our  seas,  and  sold  again  by  them  to  us,  must  needs  be  a  great 
dishonor  to  our  nation  and  hindrance  to  our  realm. 

That  although  the  abundance  of  corn  grows  in  the  East  countries  (Poland 
and  Livonia),  yet  the  great  storehouse  for  grain,  to  ser\-e  Christendom,  etc. ,  in 
time  of  dearth,  is  iu  the  Low  Countries. 

The  mighty  store  of  wines  and  salt  is  in  France  and  Spain,  but  the  great  vin- 
tage and  staple  of  salt  are  in  the  Low  Countries ;  and  they  send  nearly  one  thousand 
sail  of  ships  yearly  into  the  East  countries,  with  salt  and  wine  only,  besides  what 
they  send  to  other  places,  and  we  not  one  ship  in  that  way. 

The  wool,  cloth,  lead,  tin  and  divers  other  commodities  are  in  England,  but 
by  means  of  our  wool  and  our  cloth  going  out  rough,  undressed  and  undyed,  there 
is  an  exceeding  manufactory  and  drapery  in  the  Low  Countries,  wherewith  they 
ser\'e  themselves  and  other  nations  and  greatly  advance  the  employment  of  their 
people  at  home  and  traffic  abroad,  and  in  proportion  suppress  ours. 

We  send  into  the  East  countries  yearly  but  one  hundred  ships,  and  our  trade 
chiefly  depends  on  three  towns,  viz:  Elbing,  Konigsberg  and  Dantzic  ;  but  the  Low- 
Countries  send  thither  about  three  thousand  ships  trading  into  every  port  and  town, 
vending  their  commodities  to  exceeding  profit  and  lading  their  ships  with  plenty 
of  their  commodities  which  they  have  20  per  cent  cheaper  than  we,  by  reason  of 
the  difference  of  the  coin,  and  their  fish  yields  ready  money.  They  (the  Holland- 
ers) send  into  France,  Spaiji,  Portugal  and  Italy  about  two  thousand  ships  yearly 
with  those  East  Country  commodities,  and  we  none  in  that  course. 

They  trade  into  all  cities  and  port  towns  of  France,  and  we  chiefly  to  five  or 
six. 

The  Low  Countries  have  as  many  ships  and  vessels  as  eleven  kingdoms.,  of 
Christendom  have,  let  England  be  one.  They  build  every  year  near  one  thousand 
ships,  although  all  their  native  commodities  do  not  require  one  hundred  ships  to  carry 
them  away  at  onee.  Yet,  although  we  have  all  things  of  our  own  in  abundance  for 
the  increase  of  traffic,  timber  to  build  ships,  and  commodities  of  our  own  to  lade 
one  thousand  ships  at  once  (besides  the  great  fishing),  and  as  fast  as  they  made 
their  voyages,  might  relade  again,  yet  our  ships  and  mariners  decline,  and  traffic 
and  merchants  daily  decay. 

God  hath  blessed  your  majesty  with  copper,  lead,  iron,  tin,  alum,  copperas, 
saffron,  fells  (?'.  e.  skins),  and  many  native  commodities  to  the  number  of  about 
one  hundred;  and  other  manufactures  venible  to  the  number  of  about  one  thousand  ; 
besides  corn,  whereof  great  quantities  of  beer  are  made,  and  mo.stly  transported  by 
strangers ;  as  also  wool  and  coals.  Iron  ordnance,  a  jewel  of  great  value,  far  more 
than  it  is  accounted,  by  reason  that  no  other  country  but  England  could  ever  attain 
unto  it,  although  they  had  attempted  it  with  great  charge. 

That  there  were  about  eighty  thousand  undressed  and  undyed  cloths  annually 
exported  from  England,  zvhereby  four  hundred  thousand  pounds  per  annum  for 
fifty-five  years  past  [being  about  twenty  millions)  has  been  lost  to  the  nation;  which 
sum; had  the  cloths  been  dressed  and  dyed  at  home,  would  have  been  gained,  besides 
the  further  enlarging  of  traffic,  by  importing  materials  for  dyeing  and  the  increase  of 
customs  thereon.  Moreover,  there  have  been  annually  exported  in  that  time,  in  baye. 
(baizes)  Northern  and  Devonshire  kerseys,  all  white,  fifty  thousand  cloths,  counting 
three  kerseys  to  one  cloth;  whereby  five  millions  more  have  been  lost  for -want  of 
dyeing  and  dressing. 


3I0DERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


Need  of 
protecting 
the  fishing 


Signifi- 
cance of 
RaleigIVs 


England's 
foimidabh- 
rivals. 


Our  bayes  are  sent  white  to  Amsterdam,  and  there  dressed,  dyed  and  shipped 
for  Spain,  Portugal,  etc. ,  where  they  are  sold  by  the  name  of  Flemish  bayes ;  so  we 
lose  the  very  name  of  our  home-bred  commodities. 

That  the  great  sea  business  of  fishing  employs  near  twenty  thousand  ships  and 
vessels,  and  four  hundred  thousand  people  yearly  upon  the  coasts  of  England,  Scot- 
land and  Ireland,  with  sixty  ships  of  war,  which  may  prove  dangerous.  The  Hol- 
landers alone  have  about  three  thousand  ships  to  fish  with,  and  fifty  thousand  men  are 
employed  yearly  by  them  on  your  Majesty's  coasts  aforesaid;  which  three  thousand 
ships  do  employ  near  nine  thousand  other  ships  and  vessels  and  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  persons  more  by  sea  and  land  to  make  provision  to  dress  and  trans- 
port the  fish  they  take,  and  return  commodities,  whereby  they  are  enabled  yearly 
to  build  one  thousand  ships  and  vessels. 

King  Henry  VII. ,  desiring  to  make  his  kingdom  powerful  and  rich  by  an 
increase  of  ships  and  mariners,  and  for  the  employment  of  his  people,  moved  his 
seaports  to  set  up  the  great  and  rich  fishery,  promising  them  needful  privileges, 
and  to  furnish  them  with  loads  of  money,  yet  his  people  were  slack.  That  by  onl)' 
twenty  fishing  busses  placed  at  one  seacoast  town  where  no  ships  were  before,  there 
must  be  to  carry,  recarry,  transport  and  make  provision  for  one  buss,  three  ships. 
Likewise  every  ship  setting  on  work  thirty  several  trades.  Thus  those  twenty 
busses  set  on  work  eight  thousand  persons  by  sea  and  land,  and  caused  an  increase 
of  near  one  thousand  mariners  and  a  fleet  of  eighty  sail  of  ships  in  one  town,  where 
none  were  before.  ' 

The  facts  revealed  in  this  official  document  will  be  somewhat  surpris- 
ing to  those  who  have  supposed  that  England  has  always  been  the  greatest 
power  in  the  world.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  English  nation  was 
built  by  English  people  during  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries.  Hitherto  they  had  been  without  manufacturing,  shipping, 
foreign  commerce  and  foreign  possessions.  If  she  had  continued  the  free 
trade  policy  which  was  pursued  for  centuries,  she  would  have  remained 
poor,  insignificant  and  dependent.  The  supremacy  of  Holland  could 
have  been  maintained  at  sea  for  centuries,  while  her  shops  and  factories 
could  so  have  flooded  England  with  her  wares,  that  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  the  English  people  to  have  passed  beyond  the  making  of 
anything  except  the  crudest  sort  of  implements.  The  literature  of  the 
time  reveals  the  fact  that  Engli.sh  statesmen  were  fully  alive  to  the  sit- 
uation, and  comprehended  the  necessity  of  building  up  their  home  indus- 
tries. From  the  time  of  Edward  I.  to  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  only  feeble 
efforts  were  made  toward  .ship  building. 

The  struggle  between  Spain  and  England  at  the  time  of  Elizabeth 
had  given  English  sailors  a  schooling  in  naval  warfare.  The  organiza- 
tion of  trading  companies  had  laid  the  foundation  of  a  merchant  marine, 
and  turned  the  attention  of  the  English  people  definitely  toward  foreign 
trade.  The  foreign  conquest  and  acquisition  of  territory  in  the  New 
World  by  Spain,  Portugal,  Holland  and  France,  had  aroused  the  jealousy 
of  England.  Holland  had  become  at  this  time  the  strongest  commercial 
and  maritime  power  in  the  world.     Venice  had  ceased  to  be  a  competitor 

'  Macgrcgor's  Commercial  Statistics,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  S10-S14. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


in  the  western  trade.  The  power  of  the  Hanseatic  League  was  broken ; 
the  vast  commerce  which  had  formerly  been  carried  on  by  them  had  fallen 
into  the  hands  of  the  Dutch,  whose  mariners  were  controlling  trade  in 
every  country.  In  North  America,  the  State  of  New  York,  then  New 
Amsterdam,  was  a  Dutch  colony.  The  Portuguese  had  been  driven  out 
of  the  East,  and  the  trade  in  spices,  formerly  held  by  Lisbon,  had  been 
transferred  to  Amsterdam.  In  1623  the  English  garrison  at  Amboyna 
was  massacred  and  the  East  India  Company  practically  expelled  from 
the  country.  Their  trade  was  harassed  and  constantly  interfered  with 
by  the  Dutch,  and  the  British  coast  swarmed  with  Dutch  fishing 
vessels. 

The  war  between  Holland  and  England,  in  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  was  purely  a  struggle  for  commercial  supremacy.  Both 
countries  had  defended  the  Protestant  religion,  when  their  seamen 
fought  side  by  side  against  Spain  and  Portugal.  The  religious  preju- 
dices of  the  time  had  bound  the  two  nations  together  by  a  tie  that 
made  them  almost  one  people,  but  there  was  one  interest  upon  w^hich  they 
were  divided.  Holland  was  struggling  to  extend  and  maintain  her  com- 
mercial supremacy,  while  the  English  were  attempting  to  undermine  it, 
and  acquire  it  for  themselves.  The  clash  came  in  1651  when  the  famous 
navigation  laws  were  passed  by  parliament.  The  account  of  the  period 
of  war  which  followed  is  thus  concisely  given  by  Mr.  McGregor : 

In  1651,  Dutch  vessels  being  at  this  time  generally  employed  by  the  English 
in  the  trade  with  the  American  settlement  was,  this  year,  by  the  Rump  Parliament, 
considered  a  suflBcient  justification  for  their  bringing  forward  the  celebrated  Navi- 
gation Act,  which  was  now  enforced  and  ten  years  afterward  legalized  by  Charles  II. 
This  act  provided  thai  no  merchandise,  the  produce  of  Asia,  Africa,  or  America, 
should  be  imported  into  England  in  any  but  English  built  ships,  commanded  by  an 
English  master,  and  navigated  by  a  crew,  threefourths  of  whom  should  be  English- 
men;  nor  any  fish  exported  from,  or  imported  into  Englayid  or  Ireland,  except  of 
English  taking.  Until  this  law  was  enacted,  all  nations,  in  amity  with  England, 
might  import  or  export  whatever  commodities,  and  in  whatever  ships,  they  pleased. 
Under  this  act  of  navigation  the  English  frequently  searched  and  seized  Dutch 
ships;  the  carrying  trade  by  which,  between  England  and  foreign  countries,  was 
now  completely  suppressed. 

Cromwell  demanded  of  the  States-General : 

1.  Amount  due  of  the  tribute  for  fishing  on  the  British  coasts. 

2.  Restoration  of  Amboyna  and  the  spice  island  to  England. 

3.  Bringing  to  justice  such  as  we're  still  alive  of  those  who  committed  the  bar- 
barities at  Amboyna  and  Banda. 

4.  Satisfaction  for  the  murder  of  Dorislaus. 

5.  Reparation  for  damages  to  English  trade  by  the  Dutch  in  Russia,  Greenland, 
etc.,  1,700,000  pounds. 

These  demands  were  so  peremptorily  made  by  Cromwell,  that  the  Dutch  pre- 
pared for  the  war,  which  broke  out  next  year. 

In  1652,  Van  Tromp,  as  a  signal  of  his  being  able  to  sweep  the  seas,  sailed  down 
the  channel  with  a  broom  at  the  masthead  of  his  ships.  The  Dutch  fleet  consisted 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty  ships  great  and  small.     Incredible  destruction  on  the  side 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


both  of  the  Commonwealth  and  the  Dutch;  four  general  engagements  during  nine 

iths,  besides  lesser  fights. 

1653.  In  this  year  a  general  engagement  between  the  fleet  of  the  Common- 
wealth, consisting  of  one  hundred  ships  great  and  small,  commanded  by  Admirals 
Monk  and  Deaue,  and  the  Dutch  fleet  of  about  the  same  number,  commanded  by 
Admirals  Van  Tromp,  De  Ruyter,  De  Witt  and  the  two  Eversons.  They  fought 
desperately  for  two  days,  the  Dutch  being  finally  defeated,  losing  eleven  ships 
taken,  six  sunk  and  two  blown  up.  Van  Tromp  in  his  memorial  to  the  States- 
General  says,  "The  ships  and  the  guns  of  the  Dutch  are  too  slender  for  those  of  the 
English;"  and  De  Ruyter  says,  "He  would  not  return  to  sea  if  he  were  not  re-en- 
forced with  greater  and  better  ships.  " 

It  would  appear  that  Cromwell  had,  by  this  year,  managed  so  efficiently  the 
administration  of  the  navy,  that  the  English  had  two  hundred  and  four  ships  of 
war,  manned  by  thirty-five  thousand  seamen.  They  invested  the  coast  of  Holland, 
prevented  the  fishing  vessels  putting  to  sea,  and  greatly  harassed  the  Dutch  trade. 
Some  of  the  Dutch  East  India  ships  were  added  to  their  fleet,  which  in  little  less  than 
a  month  amounted  to  one  hundred  and  ninty-five  ships  under  Van  Tromp,  who 
engaged  Monk  on  the  Dutch  coast.  This  was  a  desperate  fight.  Monk's  orders  were 
neither  to  give  nor  take  quarter.  The  English  gained  the  victory,  lost  one  ship, 
took  none,  but  either  sunk  or  blew  up  twenty-seven  Dutch  vessels.  Van  Tromp 
and  a  great  number  of  men  were  killed,  and  the  English  suffered  great  loss  of 
life. 

The  war  between  England  and  Holland,  altogether  naval,  and  carried  on  with 
such  desperation  on  both  sides  that  De  Witt  acknowledges  the  great  superiority  of  the 
English  shipping;  besides  the  ships  of  war  destroyed,  the  Dutch  in  two  years  lose 
about  seven  hundred  merchant  ships,  and  Holland  sends  accordingly  to  Cromwell 
to  sue  for  peace. 

In  1654,  peace  established  by  treaty  between  England  and  Holland.  The  most 
remarkable  article  of  this  treaty  is,  "That  the  Dutch  ships  as  well  of  war  as  others, 
meeting  any  of  the  ships  of  war  of  the  English  Commonwealth  in  the  British  seas, 
shall  strike  their  flag  and  lower  their  top-sail. "  This  is  the  first  instance  of  Eng- 
land's claiming  the  right  of  the  flag  by  formal  treaty.  The  States-General  were  also 
bound  to  "See  justice  done  on  the  authors  and  abettors  of  the  barbarous  murders 
committed  on  the  English  in  the  island  of  Amboyna  in  1622-23,  if  a"y  of  them  be 
yet  alive."  Sums  of  money  were  also  paid  to  the  representatives  of  the  English 
who  suffered  at  Amboyna,  for  losses  sustained  by  the  detention  of  British  ships  by 
Dutch  influence  in  Denmark,  for  losses  sustained  in  the  East  Indies — Cromwell  had 
then  fully  accomplished  his  promise,  that  "he  would  make  the  name  of  England 
everywhere  respected." 

In  1664,  New  York,  then  called  New  Amsterdam,  Albany,  Staten  Island  and 
Long  Island,  taken  from  the  Dutch  by  the  English,  who  now  founded  the  province 
of  New  York.  The  English  fleet  on  the  coast  of  Africa  take  several  places  from  the 
Dutch,  which  are  soon  after  retaken  by  De  Ruyter.  The  Duke  of  York  commands 
the  English  fleet  and  takes  one  hundred  and  thirty  Dutch  merchant-ships— war 
against  Holland  then  formally  declared— merchant  vessels  at  this  time  were  armed 
and  usually  sailed  in  fleets  to  protect  each  other. 

In  1665,  the  British  fleet  of  one  hundred  and  eight  ships  of  war  and  fourteen 
fire  ships  under  the  Duke  of  York,  attacked  and  defeated  the  Dutch  fleet  of  one 
hundred  and  three  ships  of  war,  and  eleven  fire  ships.  Several  Dutch  ships  beini; 
taken,  sunk  or  burnt.  The  same  year  eight  ships  of  war,  two  East  India  ships,  ami 
many  trading  vessels  were  taken  from  the  Dutch.  De  Ruyter  takes  the  English  fort 
of  Cormanteen.     Sir  Robert  Holmes  attacks  and  burns  one  hundred  and  fifty  Dutch 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


merchant  vessels  on  the  coast  of  Holland ;  yet  in  this  year  the  Dutch  make  several 
descents  on  the  coast  of  England. 

In  i566,  the  English  and  Dutch  fleets  fight  for  four  days  with  great  loss  on  both 
sides,  especially  on  the  part  of  the  English.     Several  other  sea  conflicts  this  year. 

In  1667,  the  Dutch  fleet  take  and  blow  up  Sheemess,  sail  up  the  Medway  and 
burn  the  ships  at  Chatham. 

In  1667,  peace  between  England  and  Holland.  Louis  XIV.,  this  year,  overruns 
the  Netherlands. 

In  1668,  the  triple  alliance  between  England,  Holland  and  Sweden.  Peace  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle. ' 

In  the  meanwhile  Louis  XIV.  of  France  saw  with  pleasure  these 
efforts  at  mutual  destruction  on  the  part  of  the  two  greatest  maritime 
nations  of  the  world.  In  the  decade  from  1660  to  1670,  however,  the 
English  trade  seems  to  have  suffered  more  heavily  than  the  Dutch,  for 
according  to  the  statement  of  a  contemporary  writer,  ■  the  Dutch  and 
Hamburgers  annually  employed  from  four  hundred  to  five  hundred  ships  in 
the  Greenland  whale  fishery  at  this  period  and  the  English  but  one. 
Moreover,  the  Dutch  had  a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  Russian  trade,  the 
large  trade  in  salt  from  Portugal  and  France,  and  the  fishing  for  white 
herrings  on  the  English  coasts;  while  the  English  trade  in  the  Baltic  had 
fallen  off  one-half,  the  Dutch  had  increased  ten-fold.  In  1672  England 
was  again  involved  in  war  with  Holland  under  the  secret  treaty  of  Dover 
between  Charles  II.  and  Louis  XIV.,  but  the  war  was  not  popular  in 
England  and  Louis  was  left  to  carry  it  on  alone  (1674).  For  a  time  Hol- 
land seemed  destined  to  sink  to  the  condition  of  a  vassal  of  France,  but 
the  terms  of  peace  were  so  galling  as  to  drive  the  people  to  desperation. 
The  dykes  were  cut  and  the  French,  unable  to  advance  over  a  flooded 
country,  were  obliged  to  retreat.  Peace  was  forced  upon  the  French 
monarch  by  the  intervention  of  England  and  Spain  and  the  Dutch  escaped 
from  the  war  with  their  independence  unimpaired  and  their  credit  restored. 
With  the  return  of  peace  between  England  and  Holland  in  1674  their 
mutual  trade  began  to  assume  great  importance  and  the  accession  of  the 
Dutch  Stadtholder  William  to  the  English  throne  improved  their  com- 
mercial relations. 

Nevertheless  the  navigation  laws  were  rigorously  maintained. 
They  provided  that  no  goods  of  the  growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of 
any  country  in  Europe  should  be  imported  into  Great  Britain,  excepting 
in  British  ships,  or  in  such  ships  as  were  the  property  of  the  people  of 
the  country  or  place  in  which  the  goods  were  produced,  or  from  which 
they  were  exported.  This  restriction  was  intended  wholly  to  injure  the 
traffic  of  the  Dutch,  whose  commerce  con.sisted  almost  entirely  in  dealing 
in  the  produce  of  other  countries.  A  further  provision  confined  to 
English  ships  the  carriage  of  a  large  number  of  enumerated  articles  of 


'  Macgregor's  Comraei 
quoted  in  Macgregor's  Coniii 


■  Childe's  Di.scourse  Upon  Trade, 


irlal'inn's 
between 
England 
and  Hot- 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


England 
in  the 
eighteenth 


commerce.  The  navigation  laws  which  secured  to  the  English  shippers  a 
monopoly  of  the  carrying  trade,  remained  in  force  in  their  main  features 
until  1849,  when  steam  navigation  was  introduced  and  England  with  her 
vast  facilities  for  constructing  steam  vessels  no  longer  needed  such  regu- 
lations to  keep  the  carrying  trade  in  her  hands. 

No  sooner  had  England  crushed  the  Dutch,  no  sooner  had  she 
secured  to  her  own  merchants  and  ship-owners  a  monopoly  of  the  carry- 
ing trade  to  and  from  England,  and  through  her  trading  companies, 
extended  her  trade  to  every  portion  of  the  globe,  than  a  new  rival  arose 
in  the  French.  JTFrom  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  to  1815,  Eng- 
land was  almost  constantly  engaged  in  foreign  wars  for  commercial 
supremacy.  She  was  hardly  out  of  one  before  some  new  cause  or  pretext 
arose  for  engaging  in  another.  The  Dutch,  Spanish,  Portuguese  and 
French  were  seizing  the  territory  of  the  New  World.  If  British  pos- 
sessions were  to  be  extended,  it  could  be  only  through  wars  of  con- 
quest and  by  taking  from  those  countries  what  had  already  been  acquired. 
From  1688  to  18 15  the  struggle  between  France  and  England  was  inter- 
rupted only  by  short  intervals  of  peace  and  was  renewed  by  England 
upon  the  slightest  pretext. 

The  war  of  William  III.  and  Anne  against  France,  known  as  the  War 
of  the  Spanish  Succession,  in  1702-13,  was  waged  to  prevent  Louis  XIV. 
from  adding  Spain  to  his  dominion,  and  thus  becoming  a  more  formidable 
rival  of  England.  Although  this  war  increased  the  national  debt  of  Great 
Britain  over  two  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars,  yet  it  was  a  profitable 
commercial  undertaking.  It  not  only  curbed  and  checked  the  rising  power 
of  France,  but  gave  to  England  Gibraltar,  the  Hudson  Bay  Territory, 
Newfoundland  and  Nova  Scotia.  In  1739  another  war  broke  out  between 
Spain  and  France  on  the  one  side  and  England  on  the  other.  Philip  V. 
of  Spain,  had  entered  into  a  secret  compact  with  Louis  XV.  of  France, 
by  which  it  was  agreed  that  Spain  should  exclude  English  vessels  from 
the  South  America  trade.  England  forced  a  recognition  of  her  suprem- 
acy at  sea.  This  war  drifted  into  the  war  of  the  Austrian  Succession, 
which  lasted  eight  years,  and  resulted  in  crippling  the  power  and  checking 
the  growth  of  France. 

Owing  to  disputes  which  arose  between  the  French  and  English  set- 
tlements in  North  America,  war  was  renewed  in  1756.  This  is  known 
in  American  history  as  the  French  and  Indian  war,  and  in  Europe  as  the 
Seven  Years'  War,  for  while  the  conflict  was  raging  for  dominion  in  the 
New  World  between  England  and  France,  hostilities  were  being  carried 
on  on  the  Continent,  where  England  and  Prussia  fought  against  France. 
England  not  only  harassed  and  crippled  the  French  trade  and  shipping  in 
every  part  of  the  world  wherever  it  could  be  attacked,  but  at  its  close  com- 
pelled a  cession  of  a  vast  territory  in  the  New  World.  She  gained  Canada, 
all  of  British  North  America,  Florida  and  all  of  the  French  possessions  on 


i 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


the  Mississippi  River,  excepting  New  Orleans.  During  this  same  strug 
gle,  the  power  of  the  French  was  broken  in  India.  The  French,  who  had 
united  with  native  princes,  were  defeated  in  successive  battles,  and  finally 
by  1765,  the  dominion  of  the  East  India  Company  was  extended  over  Ben- 
gal, Behar  and  Orissa.  The  power  of  the  English  was  fully  established 
in  the  East,  and  from  that  time  until  the  pi-eseut,  has  not  been  subjected 
to  foreign  interference. 

It  was  in  the  war  of  the  American  Revolution  that  England  received 
the  first  check  to  her  ambition  of  almost  universal  dominion.  The  facts 
and  circumstances  connected  with  this  important  struggle,  beginning  in 
1776  and  lasting  until  1783,  are  familiar  to  the  reader,  and  it  would  be 
out  of  place  to  enter  upon  a  recital  of  the  details.  The  causes,  however, 
which  contributed  largely  to  the  revolt  on  the  part  of  the  colonists,  will 
appear  when  we  come  to  consider  England's  colonial  policy. 

The  Napoleonic  wars  which  lasted  from  1793  almost  uninterruptedly 
until  181 5,  apeiiodof  over  twenty  years,  are  less  important  for  the  territory 
acquired,  than  for  the  commercial  advantages  which  England  secured  by 
the  impoverishment  of  all  Continental  countries,  the  destruction  of  their 
industries  and  the  annihilation  of  their  commerce.  The  vast  territor)-  in 
the  United  States,  lying  between  the  Mississippi  River  and  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  comprising  the  whole  region  excepting  the  States  of  California, 
Texas  and  New  Mexico,  was  ceded  by  Spain  to  France  in  1800.  Napo- 
leon, recognizing  the  danger  of  this  vast  region's  falling  into  the  hands 
of  England,  ceded  if  to  the  United  States  in  1803.  This  transaction, 
known  as  the  Louisiana  purchase,  illustrates  the  fear  which  England's 
long-continued  success  as  a  colonizing  nation  and  as  a  naval  power  inspired 
in  the  strongest  of  her  enemies.  Napoleon  had  reasonable  grounds  for 
apprehension. 

There  has  been  no  war  in  modern  times  of  such  magnitude,  as  this 
one  between  Napoleon  and  the  powers  of  Europe.  While  England  was 
furnishing  money  to  Napoleon's  enemies  and  maintaining  vast  armies 
in  the  field,  the  destruction  of  industries  on  the  Continent,  and  the  anni- 
hilation of  the  shipping  and  foreign  trade  of  all  Continental  countries,  left 
her,  at  its  close,  the  only  nation  that  had  profited  by  the  struggle.  While 
the  conflict  was  raging  on  the  Continent,  her  own  cities  and  towns,  secure 
from  attack,  were  perfect  beehives  of  industry.  She  was  at  this  time, 
indeed,  as  Napoleon  stated,  "the  workshop  of  the  world."  It  is  said  that 
when  his  army  invaded  the  cold  regions  of  Russia,  it  was  clothed  with 
English  woolens.  Notwithstanding  the  decree  of  Napoleon  which  ordered 
all  English  goods  found  on  the  Continent  to  be  seized  and  confiscated, 
English  factories  and  artisans  were  supplying  the  hostile  powers  with  arms 
and  ammunition,  clothing  and  implements,  to  an  immeasurable  extent. 
While  England  secured  the  islands  of  Malta,  Ceylon,  Trinidad,  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  and  a  few  other  possessions,  the  great  advantage  derived  from 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


this  struggle  was  the  absolute  commercial  supremacy  which  she  attained, 
the  entire  trade  and  commerce  of  the  world  having  fallen  into  her  hands. 
The  eighteenth  century  was  the  great  period  of  her  acquisition  of 
foreign  territory.  Below  is  given  a  statement  of  the  date  of  settle- 
ments and  mode  of  acquisition  of  colonies  and  foreign  possessions. 

THK  BRITISH  COLONIES. 
Colony.  Mode  of  Acquisition. 

Anguilla Settlement 

Antigua Settlement 

Ascension Settlement 

Bahamas Settlement 

Barbadoes Settlement 

Barbuda  ....  Settlement 

Berbice Capture 

Bermuda Settlement 

British  Columbia Settlement 

British  Kaffraria Separated  from  C.  of  G.  H..    . 


D.\TE. 
•  1650 
■  1632 


.  .  .  1629 

.  .  .  1625 

.  .  .  1628 

.  .  .  1609 

.  .  .  1S5S 

.  .  .  1S60 

Capture 1759 

.  .  .  1760 


Canada  East 

Canada  West Capture 

Cape  Breton Settlement  and  capture 

Cape  of  Good  Hope Capture 1S06 

Ceylon Capture 1795 

Demerara  and  Essequibo Capture 1803 

Dominica Cession 1763 

Falkland  Islands Settlement 1842 

Gambia Settlement ■ 1631 

Gibraltar Capture 1704 

Gold  Coast Settlement 1661 

"      (late  Danish) .  Cession      1850 

Grenada Cession 1763 

Heligoland Cession 1814 

1  (Cession i6-'i 

Honduras i  „      , 

l  Settlement 1742 

Hong  Kong Cession.    .    .        1842 

Jamaica Capture 165.=; 

Labuan Cession i84i> 

Lagos Constituted  a  Colony 1862 

Malta,  Gozo  and  Comino Capture iSoo 

Mauritius Capture 1810 

Montserrat Settlement 1632 

Natal Settlement 1824 

Nevis Settlement 1628 

/Settlement 

I  Separated  from  N.  Scotia 17S4 

Newfoundland      Settlement 160S 

New  South  Wales Settlement 1788 

New  Zealand Settlement 183^ 

{Settlement I7,s,s 
Re-Settlement 1823 
Transferred  to  Pitcairn  Is'ders 1836 


Brunswick 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


Colony.  Mode  of  Acquisition.  D.\te. 

Nova  Scotia Settlement  and  Capture 

Prince  Edward  Island Settlement 

Oueeusland Separated  from  N.    S.  W 1859 

St.  Christopher Settlement 1623 

St.  Helena Cession 1673 

St.  Helena Transferred  to  Government 1836 

St'  Lucia Capture 1803 

St.  Vincent Cession 1763 

f  Settlement 1787 

Sierra  Leone t  Transferred  to  Government 1807 

South  Australia Settlement 1836 

Tasmania Settlement 1804 

Tobago Cession 1763 

Trinidad Capture i797 

Tristan  D'Acunha Settlement 1818 

Turks  and  Caicos Settlement 

Vancouver's  Island Settlement 

r  Settlement 1836 

t  Separated  from  N.  S.  W 

Virgin  Islands Settlement 

West  Australia 


Victoria  . 


1666 

Settlement 1829 


Note  :  ' '  The  Auckland  Island  settlement,  formed  in  1849,  was  abandoned  in  1853. 
The  Bay  Islands  have  been  resigned  to  the  State  of  Honduras  (which  guarantees 
their  neutrality).  Fernando  Po  has  been  given  up  to  Spain,  to  which  it  properly 
belongs,  and  the  Ionian  Islands  have  been  ceded  to  Greece. ' ' 

The  dominating  idea  of  the  English  people  has  been  to  keep 
down  and  destroy  all  rivals,  to  build  up  and  promote  the  material  interest 
of  England.  Her  colonies  and  foreign  possessions  were  regarded  wholly  as 
a  source  of  revenue  for  the  home  government.  Her  foreign  wars  have  been 
carried  on,  and  conquests  and  settlements  made,  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing markets  for  her  domestic  produce  and  of  monopolizing  the  foreign 
trade.  All  her  legislation,  whether  placing  prohibitions  and  duties  on 
imports  or  giving  bounties  to  exporters  or  ship  builders,  and  even  the 
final  repeal  of  such  enactments,  including  the  adoption  of  free  trade, had  this 
one  purpo.se  in  view.  Creating  and  maintaining  advantages  in  commerce 
had  been  the  chief  study  of  the  English  people,  from  the  time  of  Elizabeth 
to  the  present  day.  All  changes  of  policy  or  legislation  have  simply 
been  attempts  to  accomplish  the  same  end  by  different  means.  Inordinate 
selfishness  often  blinded  her  people  to  the  wisest  and  most  politic  course 
The  treatment  of  the  American  colonies  proved  to  be  unwise,  when 
regarded  purely  from  the  standpoint  of  promoting  the  material  welfare  of 
England,  as  it  restilted  in  a  revolution  which  established  their  independ 
ence,  and  England  lost  her  most  valuable  and  richest  possession.  Eng 
land,  however,  was  not  aware  of  the  growing  .strength  and  importance  of 
the  people  of  the  New  World,  and  their  increasing  ability  to  resist  aggres- 
sions and  defend  themselves  against  arbitrary  and  unjust  laws. 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


The  English  Government  attempted,  as  soon  as  the  first  indications 
arose  of  the  building  of  rival  manufactures  in  the  New  World,  to 
suppress  them  and  to  compel  the  colonists  to  confine  themselves  to  the 
production  of  food  products  and  raw  materials,  and  to  buy  their  clothing, 
implements,  tools  and  foreign  luxuries  from  English  manufacturers  and 
merchants.  This  policy  would,  of  course,  impoverish  her  subjects  in 
America,  and  constantly  enrich  the  English.  The  colonists'  surplus  gain 
would  yearly  be  expended  in  the  purchase  of  foreign  wares;  the  balance 
of  trade  would  necessarily  be  against  them,  which  would  absolutely  pre- 
vent any  considerable  accumulation  of  specie  in  the  country.  When  this 
policy  was  begun,  it  was  undoubtedly  promoted  by  commercial  reasons; 
later,  as  political  differences  arose,  and  the  spirit  of  independence  began 
to  show  itself ,  political  considerations  influenced  the  English  Government 
to  make  it  impossible  for  the  colonists  to  live  within  themselves,  or  to 
become  strong  enough  to  separate  from  the  mother  country.  It  is,  then, 
from  both  standpoints  that  the  legislation  must  be  considered.  The  efifort 
absolutely  to  prevent  an  energetic,  industrious  and  ambitious  people  from 
engaging  in  manufacturing  pursuits  and  supplying  their  own  wants  by 
their  own  labor,  furnishes  a  series  of  the  most  arbitrary  and  unjust 
legislative  enactments  anywhere  to  be  found.  The  several  acts  of  parlia- 
ment through  which  this  purpose  was  sought  to  be  accomplished  are  so 
familiar  to  the  American  people,  that  but  brief  notice  of  them  is  necessary 
here.  They  are  referred  to  in  all  histories  of  the  United  States  in  con- 
nection with  the  causes  which  led  to  the  American  Revolution.  Some  of 
the  more  important  ones  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows: 

In  1650  thecarrying  trade  was  confined  to  British  and  colonial  ships. 
In  1660'  the  carrying  trade  was  taken  from  the  colonists  and  by  a 
navigation  act  the  chief  articles  of  export  were  required  first  to  be 
brought  to  England  in  English  ships,  and  there  warehoused  before  reship- 
ment  to  other  countries. 

In  1663  an  act  was  passed  "which  allowed  no  foreign  commodity  to 
be  sent  to  the  colonies,  unless  it  was  actually  laden  and  put  on  board  at 
an  English  port  and  sent  in  an  English  ship." 

In  1699  the  British  parliament  declared  that  "no  wool,  woolen  yarn  or 
woolen  manufactures  of  her  American  plantations  should  be  there  shipped, 
or  even  laden  in  order  to  be  transported  from  thence  to  any  place  what- 
ever. ' ' 

The  House  of  Commons  declared  in  1719  "that  erecting  any  manu- 
facture in  the  colonies  tended  to  lessen  their  dependence  on  Great 
Britain." 

In  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  emigration  from 
Europe  was  so  increasing  and  the  growth  of  the  colonies  was  so  rapid  that 
their  trade  became  yearly  of  greater  importance  to  the  English  people. 

1  I2lh,  Charles  11.,  c.  18. 


GREAT  BRITAjyft  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


Complaints  were  being  made  to  the  government  bj-  manufacturers,  and 
finally  the  Board  of  Trade  was  called  upon  for  a  report  upon  the  subject, 
a  statement  of  which  is  given  by  Mr.  McGregor,  as  follows: 

That  the  colonists  were  not  only  carrj-ing  on  trade,  but  also  setting  up  manu- 
factures detrimental  to  Great  Britain ;  and,  in  consequence  of  these  reports,  an 
order  was  issued  by  the  House  of  Commons  requiring  the  Board  of  Trade  to  report 
with  respect  to  laws  made,  iiiarmfaclures  set  up  or  trade  carried  on  detrimental  to 
the  trade,  navigation  or  manufactures  of  Great  Britain.  The  report  made  by  the  Board 
of  Trade  in  1732,  which,  although  probably  not  accurate,  contains  the  best  account 
of  the  condition  of  American  manufactures  at  that  period.  This  report  stated  that 
a  law  had  been  passed  in  the  colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay  to  encourage  the  manu- 
facture of  paper,  which  act  tended  to  diminish  the  profits  made  by  the  British 
importer  of  that  article;  that  in  New  England,  New  York,  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island  and  Pennsylvania,  woolen  and  linen  cloth  were  manufactured  to  some  extent 
for  domestic  use,  and  that  the  product  of  those  colonies  being  chiefly  cattle  and 
grain,  with  a  quantity  of  sheep,  the  wool  would  be  lost  were  it  not  used  for  that 
purpose.  It  was  also  reported,  that  flax  and  hemp  were  produced  in  the  colonies 
to  a  considerable  extent,  which  were  manufactured  into  a  coarse  sort  of  cloth  as 
well  as  bags,  traces  and  halters  for  their  horses,  that  were  more  serviceable  than 
those  that  were  imported  from  abroad;  yet  from  the  high  price  of  labor  here,  the 
manufacture  of  linen  could  not  be  carried  on  at  less  than  twenty  per  cent,  and  that 
of  woolens  than  at  fifty  per  cent.  less  than  the  cost  of  the  English  fabrics.  The 
returns  from  the  English  governor  of  New  Hampshire  alleged  that  there  were  no 
manufactures  in  that  province,  excepting  a  little  linen  made  by  its  immigrants  from 
Ireland,  but  that  the  principal  trade  was  in  lumber  and  fish.  Massachusetts  at  that 
time  also  manufactured  a  coarse  cloth  from  their  flax  and  wool,  but  the  merchants 
could  import  the  foreign  fabrics  at  a  cheaper  rate  than  they  could  purchase  those 
which  were  made  at  home.  A  few  hat  makers  worked  at  their  trades  in  the  towns 
of  that  State,  but  none  of  their  articles  were  exported.  The  leather  of  this  province 
was  also  wrought  by  the  people ;  and  although  iron  was  worked  to  some  extent,  it 
was  deemed  inferior  to  that  which  was  imported  from  Great  Britain  ;  this  being  con- 
sidered much  the  best,  as  it  was  wholly  used  in  shipping.  The  same  report  stated 
that  all  the  iron  works  within  its  bounds  did  not  make  one-twentieth  part  of  the 
amount  required  for  its  consumption.  Nor  did  New  York,  at  that  time,  exhibit 
the  degree  of  manufacturing  enterprise  which  was  deemed  detrimental  to  Great 
Britain— provisions,  furs,  whale-bones,  pitch,  oil  and  tar,  constituting  the  prin- 
cipal portion  of  its  trade.  That  of  New  Jersey  was  no  more  formidable  in  this 
respect,  as  its  traffic  consisted  of  necessary  articles  shipped  from  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York.  To  these  articles  may  be  added  a  little  linen  and  cotton  cloth,  brown 
holland,  "for  women's  wear,"  a  paper  mill  that  manufactured  to  the  amount  of  two 
hundred  pounds  yearly,  in  the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  besides  six  furnaces 
and  nineteen  forges  for  making  iron,  that  had  been  constructed  in  New  England. 
In  Rhode  Island  there  were  no  manufactures  returned ;  and  the  province  of 
Connecticut  produced  timber  and  boards,  all  sorts  of  English  grain,  hemp,  flax, 
sheep,  black  cattle  and  swine,  goats,  horses  and  tobacco.  The  manufactures  in  this 
colony  were  inconsiderable,  the  greater  portion  of  the  people  being  engaged  in 
tillage,  while  others  were  employed  in  the  various  handicrafts,  such  as  tanning  and 
shoemaking,  in  building,  joining,  tailors'  and  smiths'  work.  At  this  period  the 
colony  of  New  York  was  enabled  to  pay  for  the  foreign  fabrics  imported  from  Great 
Britain,  by  being  permitted  to  exchange  their  provisions,  and  those  of  New  Jersey, 
as  also  horses  and  lumber,  with  the  foreign  colonies,  for  money,  rum,  molasses,  cocoa. 


3I0DEBN  EhGLAXD   I'NDKl!  I'ROTKCTION. 


indigo,  cotton  and  wool.  Horses  and  lumber  were  exported  from  Connecticut  in 
return  for  sugar,  molasses,  salt  and  ardent  spirits.  In  Pennsylvania,  brigantines 
1  small  sloops  were  built,  which  they  sold  to  the  West  Indies,  and  the  "surveyor 
general  of  his  Majest5''s  woods"  states,  that  in  the  province  of  New  England  many 
ships  were  built  for  the  French  and  Spaniards  in  exchange  for  rum,  molasses,  wiues 
and  silks,  which  "they  truck  there  by  contrivance."  (Report  of  the  Board  of 
Trade.  ) ' 

The  interest  which  was  then  being  taken  in  the  subject  of  the  rise 
of  a  possible  rival  in  the  New  World  entailing  a  loss  of  trade  is  further 
indicated   by   the  following  article  which  appeared  in  the  Merchants' 

Magazine: 

The  commerce  which  was  carried  on  in  America  for  nearly  a  century  both  by  the 
French  and  English,  was  confined  to  the  exchange  of  European  articles  for  the  furs 
of  wild  animals  and  to  the  fisheries  on  the  coast.  The  policy  of  Great  Britain  was 
afterward  perseveringly   directed  against  the  manufacturing  industry  of  the  colo- 

s.  As  early  as  1731  the  jealousy  which  existed  on  this  subject  induced  the  House 
of  Commons  to  report  with  respect  to  ' '  any  laws  made,  manufactures  set  up  or  trade 

ied  on  in  the  colonies,  detrimental  to  the  trade,  navigation  and  manufactures 
of  Great  Britain;"  and,  in  consequence  of  an  alarming  discovery  in  respect  to  the 
manufacturing  of  hats,  it  was  ordained  that  no  hats  or  felts  should  be  exported  from 
the  colonies,  or  "loaded  on  a  horse,  cart,  or  any  other  carriage,  for  transportation 
from  one  plantation  to  another."  In  1750,  another  law  was  passed,  equally  degrad- 
ing. It  prohibited  the  "erection  or  continuance  of  any  mill,  or  other  engine  for 
slitting  or  rolling  iron,  or  any  plating  forge  to  work  with  a  tilt  hammer,  or  any 
furnace  for  making  steel  in  the  colonies,  under  penalty  of  two  hundred  pounds. " 

Lord  Chathana  declared  in  a  speech  delivered  in  parliament  that 
"the  English  colonists  of  North  America  had  no  right  to  manufacttire 
even  a  nail  or  a  horseshoe."  Lord  SheflSeld  in  defining  the  policy  of 
England  toward  her  American  colonies  said:  "The  only  use  of  American 
colonies  or  West  India  Islands  is  the  monopoly  of  their  consumption  and 
the  carriage  of  their  produce."  Joshua  Gee,  an  Engli.sh  writer  and 
government  official,  in  referring  to  the  English  policy  said: 

That  manufactures  in  American  colonies  should  be  discouraged  or  prohibited. 
"We  ought  always  to  keep  a  watchful  eye  over  our  colonies,  to  restrain  them  from 
setting  up  any  of  the  manufactures  that  are  carried  on  in  Great  Britain ;  and  any 
such  attempts  should  be  crushed  in  the  beginning.  For  if  they  are  suffered  to  grow 
up  to  maturity,  it  will  be  difficult  to  suppress  them.  Our  colonies  are  much  in  the 
same  state  Ireland  was  in,  when  they  began  the  woolen  manufactory ;  and  as  their 
numbers  increase,  they  will  fall  upon  manufactures  for  clothing  themselves,  if  due 
care  be  not  taken. ' ' 

If  we  examine  into  the  circumstances  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  plantations,  and 
our  own,  it  will  appear  that  not  one-fourth  part  of  their  own  products  redound  to 
their  own  profit;  for  out  of  all  that  comes  here,  they  only  carry  back  clothing  and 
other  accommodations  for  their  families,  all  of  which  is  the  merchandise  and  manu- 
facture of  this  kingdom.  "New  England  and  the  northern  colonies  have  not  com- 
modities and  products  enough  to  send  us  in  return  for  purchasing  their  necessary 
clothing,  but  are  under  very  great  difficulties;  and  therefore,  any  ordinary  sort  sells 
1  Commercial  Statistics,  Vol.  III.,  p.  543,  "  Mauuf'actuves  in  the  Uuitcd  States." 


GREAT  BEITAIX'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


with  them,  and  when  they  have  grown  out  of  fashion  with  us,  they  are  new  fash- 
ioned enough  there. ' ' 

That  this  policy  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  that  led  to  the  Revolu- 
tion is  well  understood,  and  the  experience  of  the  British  Government  in 
this  instance  caused  it,  in  later  years,  to  modify  its  course  toward  its  other 
colonies,  which  has  resulted  finally  in  efforts  to  build  up  home  industries, 
through  a  system  of  protective  tariffs  against  the  interests  of  English 
manufactures. 

The  same  restrictive  policy  piu-sued  against  the  colonies  was  also 
enforced  to  prevent  rival  industries  from  springing  up  in  Ireland.  Laws 
were  enacted  which  prevented  the  Irish  people  from  engaging  in  woolen 
manufactures.  The  linen  industries  of  the  countr}^  were  favored  because 
at  this  time  there  were  no  important  Engli-sh  linen  manufactures  to 
suffer  from  this  competition.  In  1620  the  importation  of  cattle  into 
England  froiu  Ireland  was  prohibited.  It  was  estimated  that  at  this  time 
one  hundred  thousand  head  were  brought  into  the  country  each  year.' 
The  navigation  laws  prevented  the  Irish  from  trading  with  the  colonies 
and  engaging  in  trade  with  English  ports.  This  practically  drove  every 
Irish  trading  vessel  from  the  sea. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  pursue  in  detail  the  policy  which  had  become 
so  thoroughly  established  and  was  so  persistently  and  arbitrarily  enforced 
for  the  regulation,  control  and  establishment  of  industries.  Every  new  in- 
vention was  patronized,  every  new  industry  was  fostered  and  encouraged, 
until  everywhere  throughout  the  whole  realm  villages  and  cities  became 
beehives  of  trade  and  manufactures.  A  tract,  published  in  the  early  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  speaking  of  the  tariff  policy  says,  "It  is  the 
wisdom  of  the  kingdom  or  nation  to  prevent  the  importation  of  any  manu 
f actures  from  abroad,  that  might  be  a  detriment  to  others  at  home. ' 
While  this  principle  was  fully  recognized  and  acted  upon,  the  English 
Government  went  farther  by  attempting  to  supplant  all  rivals  in  existence 
and  by  forever  preventing  any  new  ones  from  rising  in  any  other 
country  which  it  could  control.  Eegi.slation  to  promote  home  industries 
did  not  stop  with  Elizabeth  or  Cromwell,  but  continued  through  the  sue 
cessive  reigns  and  was  applied  whenever  a  new  industry  or  condition 
made  it  necessary.  In  1660  all  burials  were  required  to  be  made  ir 
woolen  shrouds,  and  in  coffins  lined  with  woolen  cloth.  This,  of  course 
was  to  encourage  or  force  a  larger  consumption  of  woolen  cloth  in  the 
countrj'.  In  1740  the  importation  of  woolen  yarn  from  Ireland  was  made 
duty  free.  Duties  were  also  removed  from  the  imports  of  dye  stuffs,  and  an 
attempt  was  made  to  encourage  the  cultivation  of  madder  in  England 
In  1750  raw  silk  was  admitted  free  of  duty  when  grown  in  British 
colonies.  So  it  appears  that  in  some  instances  revenues  were  surrendered 
in    cases    where    industry  might   thereby  be   benefited.      In    1765    the 

1  Parliamentary  History.  I.,  1195. 


Additioi. 
i„  promo 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


importation  of  foreign  silks  was  entire^^  prohibited,  while  laces,  muslins 
and  calicoes  were  permitted  to  be  warehoused  until  they  could  be  re- 
exported. In  1745  a  penalty  of  five  pounds  was  imposed  on  all  persons 
found  selling  or  wearing  French  cambric  or  lawns. 

To  encourage  the  production  of  domestic  goods  in  1722,  three  shillings 
were  paid  by  the  government  on  the  exportation  of  every  pound  weight 
of  silks;  four  shillings  for  silks  mixed  with  gold  or  silver,  and  one  shill- 
ing on  silk  stockings.  Especially  important  were  the  efforts  to  promote 
ship  building.  In  1703  bounties  were  paid  on  imports  from  American 
colonies  of  pitch,  tar,  hemp,  turpentine,  masts  and  spars.  Ship  building 
was  akso  stimulated  by  paying  a  reward  for  the  construction  of  ships  of 
large  size.  A  tenth  part  of  the  tonnage  and  poundage  duty  f«r  the  first 
three  voyages  were  given  to  the  ship  owner  for  building  a  three-decker 
of  four  hundred  and  fifty  tons  capable  of  carrying  thirty-two  guns.  A 
royal  navy  of  thirty  thousand  reserves,  ready  to  be  called  into  service  at 
any  time,  was  enrolled.  They  were  paid  two  pounds  sterling  per  annum 
whether  called  upon  or  not,  and  when  in  active  service  were  given  a 
larger  share  of  the  prize  money,  and  a  preference  in  promotion  over  com- 
mon sailors. 

The  granting  of  monopolies,  the  .system  of  bestowing  upon  individ- 
uals and'  companies  the  exclusive  privilege  of  carrying  on  a  particular 
trade  or  industry  during  a  period  of  years,  was  prohibited  by  the  statutes 
of  monopolies  passed  in  1623,  '  although  for  some  time  thereafter  many 
special  privileges  were  given  to  establish  new  industries,  which  were  ex- 
empt from  the  operation  of  the  general  law.  The  monopolies  thus  created, 
and  special  favors  given  to  individuals,  are  criticised  and  held  up  as 
representing  the  principal  feature  of  the  industrial  system  of  England 
prior  to  the  adoption  of  free  trade.  While  it  is  true  that  measures  were 
resorted  to,  which  to  some  appear  extremely  arbitrary  and  uunecessarj',  yet 
they  are  easily  separated  from  the  wise,  just  and  beneficent  features  of 
the  mercantile  system  by  those  who  are  not  seeking  to  misrepresent  or  to 
condemn  a  whole  policy,  because  of  a  few  errors.  It  is  from  this  specific 
feature  of  the  mercantile  system  that  the  advocates  of  free  trade  attempt 
to  associate  the  doctrine  of  a  protective  tarifi  with  monopolies.  When  the 
old  writers,  Adam  Smith  for  instance,  condemned  the  monopolies  of  the 
mercantile  system,  they  did  not  have  in  mind  that  branch  which  resorted 
to  just  import  duties,  protecting  every  citizen  within  the  realm  alike, 
and  conferring  upon  no  citizen  a  privilege  which  was  not  equally  open  to 
all. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  attempt  to  give  in  detail  the  instances  in 
which  monopolies  were  granted  after  the  passage  of  the  general  statute  in 
1623.  They  were  resorted  to  by  the  king  to  accomplish  the  double  purpose 
of  raising  revenue  aud  encouraging  the  establi.shment  of  new  industries. 

1  2ist,  J.  I.,  sec.  J3. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 

The  privileges  thus  extended  were  limited  to  a  term  of  years,  and  finally 
were  confined  almost  wholly  to  the  granting  of  letters  patent. 

The  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  a  period  of  industrial  im- 
provement and  invention  which  revolutionized  the  industries  of  the  country 
and  placed  England  far  in  advance  of  every  country  in  the  world.  The 
most  important  improvement  being  the  invention  of  machinery  for  the 
production  of  textile  fabrics.  Up  to  this  time  the  making  of  woolen 
cloths  constituted  the  chief  industry  of  the  country\  The  expansion  of 
this  indu.stry  during  the  eighteenth  century  was  mo.st  marvelous.  At  the 
close  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  value  of  the  wool  clip  was  $10,000,000 
from  1 2, 000, 000  sheep,  and  the  cloth  manufactured  was  worth  $30,000,000 
or  $40,000,000.  Nearly  a  half  century  later,  in  1741,  the  number  of 
sheep  in  the  country  was  17,000,000.  By  1774  the  value  of  the  woolen 
manufactures  had  reached  $65,000,000.'  At  this  time  but  little  cotton 
was  manufactured.  The  calicoes  and  prints  were  brought  from  Asia.  It 
was  through  the  invention  of  machinery  that  the  cotton  industry  sprang 
suddenly  into  exi.stence,  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century  became  the  chief  .source  of  England's  power  in  foreign  trade 
and  enabled  her  to  become  the  greatest  cotton  manufacturing  country 
in  the  world.  In  1760  James  Hargreaves  invented  the  spinning  jenny, 
which  came  into  use  ten  years  later.  At  first,  by  this  machine  eight 
threads  could  be  spun  as  easily  as  one  could  by  the  old  process.  It 
was  soon  brpught  to  such  perfection  that  a  girl  could  tend  from  eighty 
to  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  spindles.  This  machine  was  sup- 
plemented in  1 77 1  by  the  spinning  frame  patented  b}'  Sir  Richard 
Arkwright.  By  this  machine  the  spinning  of  fine  thread  was  made  pos- 
sible. The  mule  jenny  was  invented  by  Crompton  in  1779,  and  the 
power  loom  by  Cartwright  in  1775.  In  1769  James  Watt  had  discov- 
«red  the  means  of  utilizing  the  power  of  steam,  and  invented  the  steam 
engine.  In  1769  it  was  first  used  in  pumping  water  from  coal  mines,  and 
later  applied  as  a  power  for  running  machinery.  There  was  just  one 
invention  left  to  be  made  to  perfect  the  processes  of  producing  cotton  cloth 
with  great  rapidity,  and  at  so  small  a  cost  that  it  could  be  placed  within 
the  reach  of  everybody.  This  invention  was  reserved  for  an  American. 
In  1793  Eli  Whitney  invented  the  cotton  gin,  by  which  the  wool  could  be 
separated  from  the  seed  at  a  merely  nominal  cost. 

During  the  eighteenth  century  England  had  developed  her  coal  mines, 
and  hence  was  provided  in  advance  of  all  other  countries  with  the  means 
by  which  she  could  excel  in  cotton  manufacturing.  The  rapidity  with 
which  this  industry  grew  after  these  inventions  is  one  of  the  industrial 
mar\-els  of  the  world.  The  importation  of  raw  cotton  increased  from 
9,000,000  pounds  in  1783  to  18,000,000  in  1785,  and  had  reached  60,000,- 
000  pounds  by  1802. 

^  Industrial  History  of  England,  p.  135. 


Improve- 


MODERN  EKOIAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

The  English  manufacturers  were  not  content  with  the  advantage  sc 
suddenly  thrust  upon  them,  and  immediately  applied  to  parliament  to 
prevent  by  legislation,  if  possible,  other  countries  from  using  their  new 
inventions 

The  machinery  of  Arkwright  and  Hargreaves  impressed  upon  par- 
liament the  importance  of  cotton  manufacturing  and  the  advantages 
which  might  be  derived  from  it.  Steps  were  immediately  taken,  in  the 
year  1774,  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  machinerj-.  The  act'  was 
entitled,  an  "Act  to  prevent  the  exportation  to  foreign  parts  of  utensils 
made  use  of  in  the  cotton,  linen,  woolen  and  silk  manufactures  of  this 
kingdom."     The  preamble  recites: 

Whereas,  the  exportation  of  the  .several  tools  or  utensils  made  use  of  in  prepar- 
ing, working  up,  and  finishing  the  cotton  and  linen  manufactures  of  this  kingdom 
or  any  or  either  of  them,  or  any  other  goods  wherein  cotton  or  linen  or  either  of 
them  are  used,  will  enable  foreigners  to  work  up  such  manufactures,  and  greatly 
diminish  the  exportation  from  this  kingdom ;  therefore  for  preserving  as  much  as 
possible  to  his  Majesty's  British  subjects  the  benefits  arising  from  these  great  and 
valuable  branches  of  trade  and  commerce,  it  is  enacted,  etc. 


"Stringent  provisions  are  then  made  against  the  putting  on  board  of 
any  ship,  vessel  or  boat  which  shall  not  be  bound  to  some  port  or  place 
in  Great  Britain  or  Ireland,"  of  any  such  tools  or  utensils  as  are  com- 
monly used  or  proper  for  the  preparation,  working  up,  or  finishing  of 
the  cotton  or  linen  manufacture,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  such  tools, 
etc. ,  and  a  fine  of  two  hundred  pounds.  Similar  penalties  are  imposed  for 
having  in  possession,  with  intent  to  export  the  same  out  of  the  kingdom, 
any  tools  or  implements  used  in  the  woolen  or  silk  manufacture. 

The  provisions  of  this  statute,  says  John  L,.  Hayes,"  were  either  not 
sufficiently  stringent,  or  the  rapidl}^  increasing  importance  of  the 
manufactures  demanded  a  more  rigid  restriction;  for  in  the  year  1781 
another  statute  '  was  enacted  explaining  and  amending  the  former  act, 
and  prohibiting  the  exportation  of  "any  machine,  engine,  tools,  press, 
paper,  utensil  or  implement  whatever,  which  now  is,  or  may  at  any 
time  be  used  in,  or  proper  for  preparing,  working,  pressing,  finishing, 
or  completing  of  the  linen,  cotton,  wool  or  silk  manufactures  of  this 
kingdom,  or  any  other  goods  w'herein  wool,  cotton  or  silk  is  used,  or 
any  part  of  such  machine,  etc.,  or  any  model  or  plan  of  any  such 
machine."  To  the  forfeiture  of  the  machine,  etc.,  and  fine  of  two 
hundred  pounds  as  in  the  previous  statute,  is  added  imprisonment  for  the 
space  of  twelve  months. 

In  the  year  1825,  upon  a  general  revision  of  the  ctistoni  laws,  the  above 
statutes  were  repealed,  but  in  the  new  act  for  the  regulation  of  the  customs 
which  was  thereupon  passed*  it  was  provided  that  certain  articles  should 
be  absolutely  "prohibited  to  be  exported."     Among  those  mentioned  are, 

1  14111,  George  IH.,  c.  yi.  '  American  Textile  Macliiiierj',  pp.  8-9.  »  21st,  George  III.,  c.  jr 
•  6tli,  George  IV. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


any  machine,  engine,  tool,  press,  paper,  utensil  or  instrument  used  in 
or  proper  for  the  preparing,  working,  pressing  or  finishing  of  the  woolen, 
cotton,  linen  or  silk  manufactures  of  the  kingdom,  or  any  other  goods 
wherein  wool,  cotton  or  silk  is  used,  or  any  part  of  such  machine,  etc., 
or  any  model  or  plan  thereof  (except  wool  cards  and  spinners'  cards  not 
worth  above  4^.  and  is.  6d.  per  pair  respectively).  To  this  list  was  added 
utensils  used  in  cotton  printing.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  the  list  of  arti- 
cles prohibited,  the  precise  language  of  the  statute  of  178 1-2  is  retained. 
A  revision  of  the  customs  tariff  was  made  again  in  1833  and  in  the  table 
of  prohibitions  of  exportations  the  same  list  occurs.  '  This  prohibition 
remained  in  force,  it  would  seem,  for  twelve  years,  although  it  may  have 
been  less  rigidly  enforced  or  the  means  of  evasion  were  greater  with  the 
increased  facilities  of  intercourse  with  England  than  at  an  early  period.^ 
The  Act  of  1833  was  not  repealed  until  1845  about  the  time  England 
changed  her  policy  and  adopted  free  trade. 

A  duty  on  the  importation  of  manufactures  of  cotton  amounting  to 
forty-four  per  cent  was  imposed  by  the  general  tariff  law  of  1787  and 
increased  to  fifty  per  cent  in  1819.     It  was  repealed,  however,  in  1846. 

The  iron  industry  is  one  of  the  oldest  in  England.  It  received  its 
great  impetus  in  1 740,  when  the  proce.ss  of  smelting  began  to  be  carried 
on  by  the  use  of  pit  coal  instead  of  charcoal.  In  1 740  the  quantity  of  pig 
iron  was  17,000  tons,  made  from  fifty-nine  furnaces;  in  178S,  68,000  tons, 
from  eighty-five  furnaces;  in  1796,  125,000  tons  from  one  hundred  and 
twenty-one  furnaces,  and  in  1806,  250,000  tons  from  one  hundred  and 
sixty-nine  furnaces. 

The  discoveries  made  by  Josiah  Wedgwood  in  1760,  gave  to  the 
English  people  a  .superiority  in  the  manufacture  of  pottery,  which  had 
not  hitherto  existed.  The  rapid  growth  of  this  industry,  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  added  immeasurably  to  the  industrial  power 
of  the  country. 

The  eighteenth  century  was  a  period  of  systematic  development 
and  intrenchment  of  the  English  people  in  every  branch  of  production, 
trade  and  commerce.  The  marvelous  growth  of  foreign  trade  and  ship- 
ping ;  the  perfection  and  improvement  in  manufacturing  and  the 
fisheries;  the  establishment  of  colonies  and  the  acquisition  of  foreign 
possessions,  all  combined  to  make  the  eighteenth  century  the  most 
important,  in  some  respects,  in  the  commercial  history  of  the  country. 
Space  will  not  admit  of  a  detailed  analysis  of  all  of  these  phases  of  pro- 
duction and  sources  of  wealth.  Besides,  this  was  a  great  period  of  pub- 
lic enterprises.  The  improvement  in  highways;  the  building  of  bridges 
and  the  making  of  turnpike  roads,  together  with  the  construction  of 
canals,  provided  means  of  communication  and  transportation  throughout 
all  parts  of  the  kingdom.    Rivers  and  harbors  were  improved ;  light-houses 

1  3d  and 4th,  W.  IV.,  c.  .S2.        -  Textile  Machinery,  John  I,.  Hayes,  pp.  7-S. 


MODERN  EKOLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


Evidence 
prosperity 


were  built,  and  in  fact  every  means  which  was  known  to  the  English 
people,  or  which  could  be  devised,  was  resorted  to  for  the  development  of 
the  country  and  the  encouragement  of  trade. 

John  Wade,  in  his  history  of  "Middle  and  Working  Classes  of 
England,"  during  the  reign  of  George  II.,  (1727  to  1760,)  says: 

Of  the  thirty-three  years  of  this  king's  government,  only  thirteen  were  years 
of  war;  the  remainder  of  peace,  prosperity  and  great  internal  improvements.  Ship- 
ping increased,  agriculture,  commerce  and  the  manufacturing  arts  flourished. 
Under  numerous  enclosure  acts  the  waste  lands  were  reclaimed;  new  roads  were 
opened  and  old  ones  improved;  bridges  were  erected,  and  numerous  rivers  widened 
and  deepened,  for  facilitating  internal  communication  ;  vast  quantities  of  corn  were 
annually  exported.  The  balauceof  payments  in  return  for  the  excess  of  exports,  in 
grain  and  other  commodities  kept  up  the  circulation  almost  without  the  aid  of 
a  paper  currency  ;  commercial  interest  ran  steadily  at  three  per  cent.  The  prices  of  the 
public  securities  rose  above  par,  so  that  ministers  were  enabled  to  reduce  annuities 
by  offering  the  usual  alternative  to  the  creditors  of  either  the  payment  of  the  princi- 
pal or  the  acceptance  of  a  lower  rate  of  interest. 

The  activity  of  national  industry  and  abundance  of  capital  are  evidenced  by 
the  extent  of  local  improvements,  especially  in  London  and  Edinburgh.  In  Lon- 
don no  fewer  than  eight  new  parishes  were  erected  between  the  Revolution  and  the 
end  of  the  reign  of  George  II.  An  act  had  passed  in  Queen  Anne's  reign  for  the 
building  of  fifty  additional  churches  in  the  metropolis.  The  extension  of  commerce 
and  manufactures  caused  a  great  addition  to  the  population  in  the  chief  seats  of 
industry  and  enterprise  in  the  country,— in  Manchester,  Birmingham,  Liverpool, 
Bristol,  Glasgow,  Leeds,  Sheffield,  Frome. 

The  growth  of  population  was  very  great.  Prior  to  1751  it  had  not 
increased  over  3  per  cent  during  any  period  of  ten  years,  but  from  1751 
to  1 78 1  the  increase  in  each  ten  year  period  was  6  per  cent.  Between  1 78 1 
and  1791,  the  increase  was  9  percent,  and  1791  and  1801,11  per  cent,  and 
1 4  per  cent  between  1801  and  181 1,  and  21  per  cent  between  181 1  and 
1818.  In  1760  the  population  was  8,000,000,  and  it  had  reached  12,000,- 
000  in  1819. 

The  demand  for  labor  which  had  been  occasioned  by  the  develop- 
ment of  the  vast  system  of  diversified  industries,  then  carried  on  in  all 
parts  of  the  country,  had  brought  about  an  increase  in  wages  and  such  a 
general  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  laboring  classes  that  this 
period  is  universally  referred  to  by  the  historians  of  the  time  as  one  of 
great  satisfaction  and  encouragement  in  this  respect.  The  vast  factory 
system  had  not  been  introduced,  every  village,  and  in  fact  the  rural  dis- 
tricts were  filled  with  those  small  shops  and  factories  in  which  various 
branches  of  manufacturing  were  carried  on.  Daniel  De  Foe  in  his  "Tour 
Through  Great  Britain,"  in  giving  an  account  of  his  obser^-ations  of  the 
condition  of  the  people,  near  Halifax,  in  Yorkshire,  between  1724  and 
1726,  says: 

The  land  was  divided  into  small  enclosures  from  two  acres  to  six  or  seven  each, 
seldom  more,  every  three  or  four  pieces  of  land  having  a  house  belonging  to  them ; 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


hardly  a  house  standing  out  of  speaking  distance  from  another.  We  could  see  at  every 
iouse  a  tenter,  and  on  almost  every  tenter  a  piece  of  cloth  or  kersie  or  shalloon. 
At  every  considerable  house  there  was  a  manufactorj-.  Every  clothier  keeps  one 
horse  at  least  to  carry  his  manufactures  to  the  market;  and  every  one  generally 
keeps  a  cow  or  two  or  more  for  his  family.  By  this  means  the  small  pieces  of  en- 
closed land  about  each  house  are  occupied,  for  they  scarce  sow  corn  enough  to  feed 
their  poultry.  The  houses  are  full  of  lusty  fellows,"  some  at  the  dye-vat,  some  at 
the  looms,  others  dressing  the  cloths;  the  women  and  children  carding  or  spinning; 
being  all  employed  from  the  youngest  to  the  oldest. 

De  Foe  further  adds,  "Not  a  beggar  to  be  seen  or  an  idle  person." 
The  improvement  in  agriculture;  the  ease  and  comfort  enjoj-ed  by 
the  people  during  this  century,  present  a  striking  contrast  to  the  con- 
ditions which  prevailed  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
before  the  fostering  care  of  protective  legislation  became  the  settled 
national  policy.  As  the  artisans,  manufacturing,  commercial  and  profes- 
sional classes  increased,  the  home  market  for  the  produce  of  the  farm 
expanded.  It  was  the  vast  increase  of  the  home  market,  occasioned  by 
the  growth  of  population,  incomes  and  wealth  of  the  people  of  England, 
which  so  immeasurably  improved  the  condition  of  the  agriculturist. 

Mr.  Gibbins  says  of  the  condition  of  the  rural  population  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century : 

Nor  was  that  convenient  plenty  which  was  the  lot  of  the  manufacturing  portion 
of  the  people,  confined  only  to  that  section.  The  condition  of  the  agricultural 
laborer,  who  was  generally  the  worst  off  of  all  classes,  from  being  so  much  under 
the  direct  supervision  of  his  master,  had  considerably  improved  together  with  the 
general  improvement  of  agriculture  spoken  of  in  a  previous  chapter.  The  price  of 
corn  had  fallen,  while  wages  had  risen,  though  these  were  less  than  an  artisan's, 
being,  according  to  Arthur  Young's  average  estimate  for  the  North  and  Midland 
counties,  about  ys.  a  week.  But  it  was  generally  Ss.  or  los. ,  while  the  board  of  a 
working  man  may  be  placed  at  about  5.S.  or  6s.  a  week.  Cottages  were  occ.isionally 
rent  free,  or  at  any  rate  only  paid  a  low  rent,  never  more  than 50.?.  or  60s.  per  year. 
There  was  an  abundance  of  food,  clothing  and  furniture.  Wheat  bread  had  entirely 
superseded  rye  bread.  Every  poor  family  now  drank  tea,  which  had  formerly  been 
a  costly  luxurj-.  "The  consumption  of  meat  was,  "  says  Arthur  Young,  "pretty 
considerable, ' '  and  that  of  cheese  ' '  immense. ' '  Indeed,  he  states  that  the  laborers, 
"by  their  large  wages,  and  the  cheapness  of  all  necessaries  enjoyed  better  dwellings, 
diet  and  apparel  in  England  than  the  husbandmen  or  farmers  did  in  other  countries.' 

John  Wade,  in  his  history  above  quoted  from,  speaks  of  the  agricul- 
tural improvements  as  follows: 

In  1710  the  winnowing  machine  was  introduced  from  Holland,  and  also  about 
the  same  time  the  thrashing  machine  began  to  be  used  in  the  northern  parts  of  the 
island.  In  1732  the  celebrated  Jethro  Tull  commenced  his  experiments  on  his  farm 
in  Berkshire,  but  thirty  years  elapsed  before  they  excited  much  practical  attention, 
and  before  the  more  valuable  parts  of  his  system  began  to  be  adopted  by  intelligent 
agriculturists.  He  introduced  the  drill-husbandry  and  recommended  the  substi- 
tution of  labor  and  arrangement  in  the  place  of  manure  and  fallow  in  the  culture 
of  land.  A  rotation  of  crops  and  the  cultivation  of  turnips,  clover  and  potatoes  in 
1  Industrial  History  of  England,  pp.  149-50. 


Condition 
of  rural 
population. 


prosperily 
oftfic 


Causes 
assigned  by 
Pitt  for  th'e 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

the  field  became  more  general.  That  agriculture  was  extending  is  shown  by  the 
course  of  legislation.  More  land  was  demanded  for  cultivation.  In  the  belligerent 
reign  of  William  III.  not  a  single  act  was  passed  for  the  enclosure  of  wastes  or  the 
draining  of  marshes.  In  the  equally  fighting  reign  of  Anne,  there  were  only  two 
enclosure  acts,  but  in  that  of  George  I.  the  number  was  twent)--six,  and  in  the 
thirty-three  years'  reign  of  George  II.  two  hundred  and  twenty-six  were  passed. 

The  Earl  of  Lauderdale,  writing  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, considers  England  superior  to  all  other  countries  in  wealth,  power 
and  the  material  welfare  of  her  people.     He  sa3's: 

This  nation  is  at  present  the  greatest  commercial  country  in  the  world.  There 
is  hardly  any  people,  in  any  climate  with  whom  our  merchants  have  not  dealings; 
and  if  we  examine  the  cargoes  that  are  made  up  to  suit  the  demands  of  different 
nations,  we  shall  universally  observe  that  it  is  the  distribution  of  property  in  each 
country  that  dictates  the  nature  and  quality  of  the  goods  that  are  sent  to  it.' 

England  is  the  only  country  in  Europe  where  wealth  is  so  diffused  that  the 
great  body  of  the  manufacturers,  that  is,  a  great  proportion  of  the  people  can  afford 
to  enjoy  a  mixture  of  animal  with  vegetable  food  for  their  nourishment. ^ 

In  1786,  Mr.  Pitt,  then  Prime  Minister,  introduced  a  proposal  for  the 
accumulation  of  a  sinking  fund,  which  was  followed  in  1792  by  a  bill  for 
its  increase.  Upon  this  occasion,  the  Prime  Minister  presented  in  a  speech 
delivered  in  parliament,  a  review  of  the  prosperity  and  commercial  impor- 
tance of  the  country,  which  shows  the  pre-eminent  position  occupied  by 
England  at  this  time  as  a  commercial  nation,  and  the  cati.ses  which  were 
then  operating  to  augment  the  vast  accumulation  of  capital  which  was 
going  on.  The  following  extract  from  the  speech. pf  Mr.  Pitt,  is  taken 
from  the  Earl  of  Lauderdale's  "Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Origin  of 
Public  Wealth:" 


Having  stated  the  increase  of  revenue  and  shown  that  it  has  been  accompanied 
by  a  proportionate  increase  of  the  national  wealth,  commerce  and  manufactures, 
I  feel  that  it  is  natural  to  ask,  what  have  been  the  peculiar  circumstances  to  which 
these  effects  are  to  be  ascribed? 

The  first  and  most  obvious  answer  which  every  man's  mind  will  suggest  to  this 
question  is,  that  it  arises  from  the  natural  industry  and  energy  of  the  country ;  but 
what  is  it  which  has  enabled  that  industry  and  energj'  to  act  with  such  peculiar 
vigor,  and  so  far  beyond  the  example  of  former  periods?  The  improvement  which 
has  been  made  in  the  mode  of  carrying  on  almost  every  branch  of  manufacture, 
and  the  degree  to  which  labor  has  been  abridged  by  the  invention  and  application 
of  machinery,  have  undoubtedly  had  a  considerable  share  in  producing  such  impor- 
tant effects.  We  have  besides,  seen,  during  these  periods,  more  than  at  any  foniier 
time,  the  effect  of  one  circumstance  which  has  principally  tended  to  rai.se  this  coun- 
try to  its  mercantile  pre-eminence;  I  mean  that  peculiar  degree  of  credit,  which  by 
a  twofold  operation  at  once  gives  additional  facility  and  extent  to  the  transactions 
of  our  merchants  at  home,  and  enables  them  to  obtain  a  proportional  superiority  in 
markets  abroad.  This  advantage  has  been  most  conspicuous  during  the  latter  part  of 
the  period  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  it  is  constantly  increasing  in  proportion 
to  the  prosperity  which  it  contributes  to  create. 

In  addition  to  all  this  the  exploring  and  enterprising  spirit  of  cur-merchants 
has  been  seen  in  the  extension  of  our  navigation  and  our  fisheries,  and  the  acquisitions 
'  Inquiry  into  Nature  and  Originof  Public  WcaUh,  p.  321.      -lA.,  p.  324. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


of  new  markets  in  different  parts  of  the  world ;  and  undoubtedly  those  efforts 
have  been  not  a  little  assisted  by  the  additional  intercourse  with  France  in  conse- 
quence of  the  coinniercial  treaty  ;  an  intercourse  which,  though  probably  checked 
and  abated  by  the  distractions  now  prevailing  in  that  kingdom  (French  Revolution), 
has  furnished  a  great  additional  incitement  to  industry  and  exertion. 

But  there  is  still  another  cause  even  more  satisfactory  than  these,  because  it  is 
of  a  still  more  extensive  and  permanent  nature;  that  constant  accumulation  of  cap- 
ital—that coutinual  tendency  to  increase,  the  operation  of  which  is  universally  seen 
in  a  greater  or  less  proportion  wherever  it  is  not  obstructed  by  some  public  calamity, 
or  by  some  mistaken  or  mischievous  policy. 

This  accumulation  of  capital  arises  from  the  continual  application  of  a  part,  at 
least,  of  the  profit  obtained  in  each  year,  to  increase  the  total  amount  of  capital  to 
be  employed  in  a  similar  manner  and  with  continued  profit  in  the  year  following. 
The  great  mass  of  the  property  of  the  nation  is  thus  constantly  increasing  at  com- 
pound interest ;  the  progress  of  which,  in  any  considerable  period,  is  what,  at  first 
view,  would  appear  incredible.  Great  as  have  been  the  effects  of  this  cause  already, 
they  must  be  greater  in  future ;  for  its  powers  are  augmented  in  proportion  as  they 
are  exerted.  It  acts  with  a  velocity  continually  accelerated,  with  a  ,force  contin- 
ually increased. 

In  1799  an  income  tax  was  imposed.     Upon  the  presentation  of  the 

measure,  the  Prime  Minister  laid  before  parliament  an  estimate  of  the 

incomes  of  the  country,  which  might  be  subjected  to  the  tax,   together 

with  the  probable  amount  of  revenue  which  might  be  derived  therefrom. 

The  estimates  made  by  Mr.  Pitt'  are  as  follows: 

Computation  of  Income  by  Mr.  Pitt. 
Deduction  for  part  under  $300,  which  will  pay  nothifig,  ajid  part  binder 

$1000,  which  will  pay  an  average  of  7-5. 

Annual  Income.  Taxable  Income. 
Landlords'  rents,  40,000,000  cultivated 

acres,  estimated  at  \is.  dd.  per  acre  1(125,000,000  1-5      $25,000,000      |ioo,ooo,ooo 

Tenants' rents  at  three- fourths  .    .    .    .  95,000,000  2-3        65,000,000          30,000,000 

Tithes 25,000,000  1-5          5,000,000          20,000,000 

Mines,  Nav.  and  Timber 15,000,000  15,000,000 

Houses 30,000,000  1-5           6,000,000           24,000,000 

Rents  on  inhabited  houses 4,500,000 

Professions          10,000,000  10,000 

Scotland  ]4,  of  Eng 25,000,000  25,000,000 

Incomes  from  possessions  beyond  the 

sea 25,000,000  25,000,000 

Interest  on  funds,  after  deducting  sums 

issued  to  commissioners  as  sinking 

fund  and  int.  of  capital  redeemed  .  75,000,000  1-5         I5,000,CXX5          60,000 
Profit  on  foreign  trade,  supposed  15  % 

on  /8o,ooo,ooo,  capital  insured     .    .  60,000,000  60,000,000 

Profit  on  home  trade  at  15  %  .    .   .    .  90,000,000  148,000, 

Other  trade 50,000,000  140,000,000 

1657,000,000 
Reduced  to  United  States  money  at  J5  per  pound  sterling, 
'  Published  in  Appendix  IV  of  An  Inquiry  Into  the  Nature  and  Origin  of  Public  Wealth. 


incomes  : 
'799- 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTIUN. 


deal  rx- 
panstnn  oj 
foreign 
trade — In- 
crease of 
exports  an 

from  l6<^7 
to  ijg^. 


It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  earnings  of  the  laboring  classes 
are  not  included  in  this  estimate.  Considering  the  fact  that  at  this  time 
the  population  of  England  was  less  than  12,000,000,  and  that  the  vast 
accumulation  of  wealth  from  which  these  incomes  were  derived,  was  made 
before  the  industrial  revolution  under  which  by  the  use  of  machinery, 
new  inventions  and  processes,  the  power  of  man  over  naturewassogreatly 
augmented,  it  discloses  an  industrial  activity  of  much  more  magnitude 
than  upon  first  notice  would  be  appreciated  by  business  men  of  the  pres- 
ent time.  It  was  before  the  age  of  railroad  building,  or  of  steamships. 
Even  the  iron  and  coal  mines  had  not  been  developed  to  any  consider- 
able extent.  None  of  the  great  sources  from  which  vast  fortunes  have 
been  acquired  during  the  nineteenth  centurj^  were  then  open  to  the 
English  people.  Their  position,  however,  had  been  reached  by  a  develop- 
ment of  their  domestic  resources,  manufactures  and  improvements  in  agri- 
culture, combined  with  foreign  trade.  The  benefits  resulting  from  the 
Navigation  Laws,  which  secured  their  commerce  with  foreign  countries, 
is  shown  by  the  constant  and  rapid  increase  of  their  exports  and 
imports. 

The  steady  expansion  of  foreign  trade,  from  the  adoption  of  the  policy 
of  protection,  is  di.sclosed  by  the  following  table  taken  from  the  ofiicial 
records  of  the  English  Government,  from  1697,  the  earliest  date  at  which 
an  authentic  account  has  been  kept  of  such  trade: 

Total  Exports  and   Imports   Between  Great  Britain  and  All 
Parts  of  the  World  from  1697  to  1793,  Inclusive.' 


Period  of  War    . 
Period  of  Peace  . 


Period  of  War 


Period  of  Peace  . 


Period  of  War 


Imports 


$17,412,930 
23,661,800 
28,538,345 
29,850,875 
29,348.030 
20,796,520 
22,632,690 
26,916,000 
20,158,245 
20,569,665 
21,370,275 
23,493,315 
22,552,965 
20,056,705 
23,428,925 
22,273,410 
29,055,385 
29,646,135 
28,204,715 
29,001,290 
31,733,840 
33,346,950 
26,837,495 


629,530 
610,520 
686,310 
345,730 
349,325 
986,425 
.851.765 
934,715 
>544>830 
.254,885 
199,845 
,822,115 
566,785 
476,040 
,814,935 
,344,200 
458,705 
,040,340 
611,315 
,249,960 
982,935 
,806,950 
,173,580 


Excess  of  Im-  Excess  of  Ex- 
ports over  ports  over 
Exports.  Imports. 


|i,54o,( 


$  2i6,6o» 
8,948,720 
1,147,965 
2,494.855 
5,001,295 
3,189.905 
8,218,785 
4,018,715 
6,386,585 

10,685,220 

10,829,570 
9,328,.Soo 
7,013,820 

11,419.335 
6,386,010 

12,070,790 
5,403,320 

10,394,205 
6,406,600 
6,248,670 
8,249,095 

7,336.085 


Published  in  MacGregor's  Commercial  Statistics  Supplement,  Vol.  V.,  pp.  95-97. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


Total  Exports   and   Imports   Betwken  Great  Britain   and  All 
Parts  of  the  World  from  1697  to  1793 — Continued. 


Year. 


1720  Period  of  War 

1721  " 

1722  Period  of  Peace 
1723 

1724 

1725 

1726      " 

1727 

1728 

1729 

1730 

1731 

1732 

1733 

1734 

1735 

1736 

1737 

1738 

1739  Period  of  War 

1740 

1741 

1742 

1743 

1744 

1745 

1746 

1747 

1748 

1749  Period  of  Peace 

1750 

1751 

1752 

1753 

1754  Period  of  Peace 

1755 

1756  Period  of  War 

1757 

1758 

1759 

1760  " 

1761  " 

1762  " 

1763  Period  of  Peace 
1764 

1765 

1766 

1767 

1768 

1769 

1770 

1771 

1772 

1773 

1774 

1775  Period  of  War 

1776 

1777 


Imports. 


130,450,415 
28,842,550 
31,980,490 
32,528,380 
36,972,025 
35,473.540 
33.389,325 
33,994,540 
37,846,495 
37,703,100 
38,900,095 
34,957,500 
35,439,570 
40,084,070 
35.479,305 
40,800,920 
36,539.830 
35,368,190 
37,194,800 
39,146.865 
33,518,890 
39,680,420 
34,334,320 
39,011,765 
31,814,855 
39.235,615 
31,028,435 
35,585,785 
40,682,040 
39,589,020 
38,860,195 
39,717,180 
39,446,845 
43,125,145 
40,467,360 
46,191,380 
42,210,135 
49,365,765 
45,370,950 
47,644,320 
53.417.975 
51,462,705 
47,895,800 
63,844,635 
66,,844,635 
59,060,720 
62,283,820 
65,485.765 
65.579.545 
65.670,450 
67,151,490 
71,041,620 
72,543,575 
62,613,215 
72,389,380 
74,079,275 
62,196,145 
63,219,170 


Excess  of  Im- 
Exports.  ports  over 


$34,554,495 
36,007,475 
41,325,425 
36,979.590 
38,003,600 
42,409,410 
38,464,200 
36,375,790 
43,536,080 
41,199,615 
42,744,910 
39,312,440 
44,353,960 
44,190,670 
41,497,015 
46,644,205 
48,512,190 
50,408,560 
50.977,715 
44,218,120 
40,218,120 
47,950,430 
47,870,955 
56,551,485 
45,953.105 
45.358,930 
53,834,190 
48,876,700 
57,706,005 
63,393.790 
63,495,400 
67,097,490 
58,474,560 
61,218,020 
58,939,140 
35,326,215 
58,603,725 
61,667,775 
63,091,670 
74,442,960 
78,905,975 
80,194,565 
72,716,680 
77,894.715 
87. 23 ',530 
78,819,335 
75,943,340 
75,450.005 
83,100,660 
75,006,410 
79,972,855 
95,092,400 
88,600,840 
81,877,150 
86,442,430 
81,631,815 
73,778.515 
67,455,150 


Excess  of  Ex- 
ports over 
Imports. 

|4, 104,080 
7,164,925 
10,434,935 
4,451,210 
1,031,675 
6,935,870 
5,074.875 
2,381,250 
5,689,585 
3.492,515 
3,944.915 
4,354,940 
8,914,390 
4,106,600 
6,017,710 
5,843.285 
11,972,360 
15,040,370 
13-782,915 
5,071,255 
6,699,230 
8,170,010 
13,536,635 
17,539,720 
14,138,350 
6,123,315 
22,805,75s 
13,290,915 
17,023,865 
23,804,770 
24,635,205 
27,380,310 
19,027,715 
18,092,975 
18,471,780 
9,134,835 
15,393,590 
12,302,010 
17,720,720 
26,798,640 
25,488,000 
28,731,860 
24,820,880 
15,050,080 
20,386,895 
19,758,615 
13,659.520 
9,964,240 
17,521,015 
9.335,860 
12,820,365 
24,050,780 
16,050,265 
19,263,935 
14,053.050 
7,552.540 
11,582,370 
4,235,980 


offo, 
trade. 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


Total  Exports  and   Imports   Between   Great   Britain  and  All 
Parts  of  the  World  from  1697  to  1793 — Conliriued. 


1778  Period  of  War    .... 

1779  "  .... 

1780  "  .... 

1781  "  .... 
17S2               "  .... 

1783  "  .... 

1784  Period  of  Peace  .... 

1785  "  .... 
17S6               "  .... 

1787  "  .... 

1788  "  .... 


Period  of  War 


154,877,660 

|6i. 

57,685,060 

.■57. 

54,061,200 

6S, 

63,618,065 

56, 

51,709,140 

65, 

65,611,175 

77, 

76,364,385 

78, 

81,396,995 

80, 

78,930,360 

81, 

89,020,120 

84, 

tt.^z. 

87, 

Q6, 

95,654,430 

100, 

98,348,910 

113, 

98,296,790 

124, 

96,288,585 

101, 

,269,475 
7,692,875 

;,  243,080 
>,7ii,48o 
5,086,950 
',341,435 
',670,310 
S,245 
.529,330 
1,348,945 
',361,240 
1,702,740 
),  600,605 
5,659,975 

^, 526,000 
[,950,900 


Excess  of  Im- 1  Excess  of  Ex- 
ports over  ports  over 
Exports.  Imports. 


906,585 
373,810 
730,260 
305,925 

598,970 
671,175 
774,610 
596.730 
946,175 
311.065 
229,210 
662,315 


The  reader  will  note  that  from  1697  to  1793,  a  period  of  nearly  one 
hundred  years,  the  balance  of  trade  was  in  favor  of  England,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  two  years.  During  this  time  English  merchants  and  manufacturers 
sold  to  the  people  of  other  countries,  $1,040, 316, 540of  merchandise  more 
than  they  purchased  of  them.  This  vast  sum  was  drawn  from  foreign 
countries,  and  added  to  the  wealth  of  the  English  people.  They  were 
constantly  outstripping  all  rivals,  both  in  the  extent  and  in  the  nature  of  the 
trade.  As  manufacturing  increased,  the  exports  from  their  factories  and 
workshops  became  greater;  while  the  imports  consisted  of  those  raw 
materials  and  food  products  of  other  countries  which  England  could  not 
produce.  External  trade  of  thischaracter  ismost  profitable.  It  furnishes 
a  constant  stimulus  to  every  branch  of  business  and  productive  industry 
within  a  country,  diffuses  life  and  enterprise  into  all  channels  of  trade, 
and  results  in  that  flourishing  condition  which  makes  a  country  prosper- 
ous, independent  and  powerful. 

The  wealth  of  the  English  people,  their  productive  powers  and 
resources  were  brought  into  prominence  by  the  Napoleonic;^  wars.  The 
growth  of  agriculture,  manufacturing,  foreign  trade  and  all  those  sources 
for  the  accumulation  of  capital,  which  had  been  making  such  progress  all 
through  the  eighteenth  century,  gave  to  England  upon  the  breaking  out 
of  the  Napoleonic  wars  in  1793  a  pre-eminence,  which  enabled  her  not 
only  to  withstand  the  terrible  strain  on  the  finances  of  the  countn',  dur- 
ing the  twenty  years  which  followed,  but  actually  to  grow  rich  and  pros- 
perous in  the  midst  of  the  unparalleled  destruction  of  property  which  was 
constantly  going  on.  Her  productive  powers  at  this  time  enabled  her  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  the  war  and  bear  its  burden  better  than  any  other 
country  involved  in  the  struggle.     While  every  other  nation  was  left 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  PROTECTIVE  POLICY. 


ruined,  bankrupt  and  prostrate,  England  prospered  and  grew  more 
powerful  in  the  very  heat  of  the  conflict,  notwithstanding  the  large  drafts 
that  were  being  made  upon  her  energies,  and  the  enormous  debt  contracted. 
When  the  war  first  broke  out,  the  English  Government  placed  a  loan 
among  the  London  merchants  of  $375,000,000,  which  was  taken  in  less 
than  a  week.  The  national  debt  was  increased  bj'  $3,044,661,645.  This 
vast  .sum  was  readily  obtained  from  English  capitalists.  The  English 
go\'ernmeut  not  only  sustained  its  own  armies  and  bore  its  own  expenses 
in  the  part  taken  in  this  struggle,  but  loaned  $328,507,145  to  other  coun- 
tries between  1792  and  1815.  The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  foreign 
loans  made  to  other  nations  in  the  wars  against  Napoleon ; 


Russia      . $  48,066,740 

Russo-Dutch  Loan     ....  20,694,180 

Portugal 47,666,775 

Germauy 39.683,330 

Prussia 28,349,425 

Spain 26,243,865 

Sweden 24,227,855 

Austria 21,055,555 

Sicily 13,672,075 

Hanover 12,400,535 

Small  States 8,667,640 

Holland 7,648,825 


Hesse  Cassel |  6,355,535 

German  Princes 3,300,000 

Sardinia 2,950,000 

Bavaria 2,505,085 

Hesse  Darmstadt 1.317,905 

Prince  of  Orange 1,150,000 

France  (Bourbons) 1,000,000 

Brunswick 725,430 

Denmark 609,585 

Baden I34.950 

Morocco 81,855 


1308,376,800     '  >|20,  130,345 

It  may  be  safely  said,  that  no  candid  and  impartial  observer  can 
examine  the  history  of  the  rise  and  development  of  the  commercial  .suprem- 
acy of  England,  in  domestic  productions  and  foreign  trade,  without 
arriving  at  the  conclusion  that  it  is  due  more  to  the  policy  of  protection 
than  to  any  other  one  cause.  It  was  not  until  the  people  of  England  con- 
ceived the  idea  that  they  could  make  their  own  clothing  and  implements 
that  the  foundations  were  laid  for  that  vast  manufacturing  system  which 
has  been  the  chief  source  of  their  wealth  and  prosperity.  As  long  as 
they  relied  upon  the  Continent  and  the  East  for  these  articles,  they  made 
no  progress.  It  was  not  until  they  imitated  the  example  which  had  been 
set  by  the  Venetians,  the  Dutch  and  the  Flemish,  and  turned  the 
attention  of  their  own  people  to  manufacturing,  that  their  material 
prosperity  began.  Thej'  did  not  cease  sending  their  wool  to  Flanders 
to  have  it  carded,  made  into  cloth,  and  returned  with  the  value  of  Flemish 
labor  added  to  the  raw  material,  until  Edward  III.  invited  John  Kemp 
with  his  weavers  into  England  to  set  up  their  industry,  prohibited  the 
export  of  wool,  and  gave  the  woolen  manufactures  the  protection  of  the 
government.  By  a  sy.stem  of  protective  tariffs  the  people  of  England  were 
turned  to  a  study  of  the  arts  and  mysteries  of  manufacturing  and  to  a  cul- 
tivation of  a  taste  for  a  high  degree  of  perfection  in  industrial  pursuits. 

>  The  Condition  of  Nations,  by  G.  Kr.  Kolb.  p.  64. 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


England's 
commercial 


When  we  pufside  by  side  the  statement  quoted  from  the  Prime  Min- 
ister in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  report  of  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh  in  1604,  a  most  striking  contrast  is  presented.  It  is 
absolutely  certain  that  this  change  could  not  have  been  wrought  under 
free  trade.  It  was  only  by  the  aid  of,  and  interference  of,  the  English 
Government  in  favor  of  its  own  people,  that  they  were  enabled  to  forge 
their  way  to  the  front  and  establish  their  commercial  .supremacy. 

Had  it  not  been  for  this  policy  the  Dutch  would  have  continued  to 
monopolize  the  fisheries  and  foreign  trade.  They  would  have  stepped  in 
and  not  only  controlled  the  trade  of  the  New  World,  but  by  underselling 
and  harassing  English  manufactures  at  home,  strangled  every  new 
industry  and  defeated  every  attempt  at  building  up  manufacturing  in 
England  herself.  Without  the  support  of  the  naval  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment not  one  of  the  trading  companies  could  have  maintained  its 
existence.  Had  not  England  become  the  seat  of  manufactures  and  pro- 
tected her  artisans,  the  Dutch  and  Huguenot  refugees  would  undoubtedly 
have  gone  to  Germany,  as  many  of  them  did.  The  growth  of  foreign 
trade  dates  from  the  passage  of  the  Navigation  Laws.  And  yet  the  wares 
produced  in  English  factories  formed  a  basis  for  that  vast  volume  of  foreign 
exchanges  without  which  there  would  have  been  but  little  use  for  ships, 
and  no  foundation  upon  which  to  build  her  commerce.  The  most  valu- 
able part  of  the  whole  field  of  English  enterprise  was  the  domestic 
industries. 

We  may  trace  the  history  of  England  from  the  earliest  times  to  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  cotton 
manufactures,  which  came  in  under  the  invention  of  machinery,  and  of 
those  industries  which  enjoy  natural  protection,  we  shall  not  find  a 
manufacturing  industry  which  does  not  owe  its  existence  to  protection. 
The  same  maj'  be  said  of  their  shipping  and  fisheries.  This  policy  has 
raised  England  from  a  most  insignificant  position  to  the  first  place  among 
the  nations  of  Christendom.  It  found  her  monarchs  pawning  their  crown 
jewels  to  foreigners  to  raise  a  small  sum  of  money,  and  left  her  the  lender 
of  millions  to  the  nations  of  Continental  Europe.  Before  protection  was 
adopted,  misery  and  distress  prevailed  everywhere  among  the  masses,  the 
land  was  overrun  with  beggars  and  able-bodied  tramps  unable  to  find 
employment,  and  in  fact  with  no  industries  in  which  work  could  be  had, 
and  no  means  for  the  relief  of  their  destitution,  excepting  public  charity. 
The  policy  of  protection  converted  England  into  the  workshop  of  the 
world,  and  by  increasing  the  independence  of  the  people  made  their  eman- 
cipation from  tyrannical  forms  of  government  and  unjust  laws  possible. 


CHAPTER  II. 
Growth  of  Industries  from  1800  to  i860. 

Since  the  adoption  of  free  trade  in  1846,  the  Manchester  School  has 
attempted,  by  every  means  possible,  to  bring  the  policy  of  protection  into 
disrepute  by  creating  an  erroneous  impression  of  the  influence  it  exerted 
upon  English  industries.  They  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  manu- 
factures of  Great  Britain  so  languished  and  declined  under  protection, 
that  free  trade  was  resorted  to  as  a  relief  from  a  policy  which  was  a 
blight  upon  the  business  interests  of  the  country-.  An  impression  to  this 
effect  has  become  quite  prevalent  in  the  minds  of  those  who  have  given 
credit  to  such  statements,  without  making  an  investigation  of  the  actual 
facts.  The  causes  which,  from  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  to  1850, 
contributed  to  restrict  the  unlimited  expansion  of  the  external  trade  of  the 
country  will  be  pointed  out  in  subsequent  chapters.  The  absolute  monopoly 
of  foreign  markets,  which  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  British  manufacturers 
at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  could  be  maintained  only  by  keeping 
open  the  best  markets  in  the  world  to  the  admission,>srf'tlieir  goods. 
The  adoption  of  protective  tariffs  by  the  United  States  and  Continental 
countries  prevented  this  from  occurring. 

While  the  rise  of  industries  in  these  countries  interfered  with  the 
extension  of  British  trade,  South  America,  Asia  and  Turkey  still  remained 
open,  and  gave  the  British  manufacturer  an  undisputed  majket  of  vast 
importance.  At  the  same  time,  even  the  United  States  and  the  Conti- 
nent were  compelled  for  a  long  time  to  depend  upon  Great  Britain 
for  a  large  variety  of  manufactures.  It  was  not  until  about  1865  that 
the  Continental  countries  had  so  far  adopted  the  use  of  machinery  that 
they  began  to  be  independent  of  her.  A  steady  expansion  of  British 
industries  is  found  to  have  taken  place  from  1815  to  1874.  The  pro- 
tective period  terminated  in  1846,  and  the  free  trade  period  extends 
from  this  date  to  the  present  time.  During  the  first  three-quarters  of  this 
century  the  British  manufacturers  held  not  only  an  almo.st  exclusive 
monopoly  in  neutral  markets,  but  in  certain  branches  of  production  in  a 
large  measure  controlled  the  trade  of  all  countries. 

For  the  purpose  of  refuting  the  reflections  which  have  been  cast  on 
the  policy  of  protection  in  its  practical  working  up  to  1846,  a  brief  review 
(99) 


M()i)i:i:\  KyaiA^D  iwdei:  imoTECTiON. 


of  the  progress  of  English  industry  during  the  closing  years  of  the  protec- 
tive period  becomes  important. 

Table  No.   i. 

Showing  Growth  of  Populatio7i  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  Principal 
Ma7iufacturing  Cities  During  the  Census  Years  from  1801  to  1861. 
Compiled  from  Reports  of  the  Censits. 


Scotland 

Total  Great  Britain  > 

United  Kingdom    . 


London    

Manchester  and  Salford  . 

Liverpool 

Birmingham 

Leeds    

Bristol 

Sheffield 

Wolver  Hampton    .   .   .   , 


9.553.021 
611.233 
1,805,864 


1,281,883  13,090,523 
7iS,353  806,274 
2,091,521  2,364,386 
:  4,500,565116,552,410 
!li302',392  !24',3l9,'8ll 


Bradfo 
Plymo, 


,378,947 
163.635 
138,354 


1,997,427 
911,705 


185. 


21,169,951 
6,551.970 
27,721,921 


61,153 
45,755 
30,584 
13,264 


50,886  I 
32.573 
37.005  I 


1,654,994  1.948,417; 

237,832  I  311,009 

201,751  I  286,487 

143,986  182,922  : 

123,393;  152,074 

104,408  I  125,146  1 

91,692'  1II.09I ' 

67,514  93.245 

43,527  I  66,715 

65,963  70,340 

53,613  i  70,337 

43,510  ;  67,308 


!,362,23e 

401,321 

375,955 
232,841 
172,270 
"37,328 
135,310 
119,74s 
103.778 
90,401 
87.784  ' 
84,690 


r.327.117 
460,428 
493.938 

I54!o93 
185.172 


By  an  examination  of  Table  No.  i ,  it  will  be  found  that  a  great 
increase  in  the  number  of  inhabitants  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  of  the 
principal  manufacturing  cities  occurred  during  this  period.  The  popula- 
tion of  Great  Britain  (England,  Scotland  and  Wales),  increased  from 
10,880,000  in  1801  to  18,846.825  in  1841,  being  72  per  cent.  Taking  the 
periods  of  twenty  years  before  and  twenty  years  after  1841,  the  growth 
of  population  was  as  follows:  From  182 1  to  1841,  29.9  per  cent;  from 
1841  to  1861,  23.4  percent.  While  the  population  of  Ireland  increased 
56  per  cent  during  the  forty  years  preceding  1841,  and  20  per  cent  during 
the  twenty  years  preceding  1841,  it  declined  29  percent,  or  from  8,175,124 
in  1841,  to  5,798,967  in  1861.  This  was  caused,  in  part,  by  the  exodus 
which  took  place  as  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  country  were  being 
undermined  and  destroyed  by  the  exce.s.sive  imports,  under  free  trade,  of 
the  farm  produce  of  other  countries.  The  population  of  the  United 
Kingdom  increased  71.9  per  cent  between  180 1  and  1841.  While  it 
increased  26.7  per  cent,  or  from  21,302,392  in  1821  to  27,021,949  in  1841, 
it  only  increased  7.5  per  cent,  or  to  29,070,932,  between  1841  and  1861. 
This  decline  was,  of  course,  caused  in  part  by  the  decrease  in  Ireland. 

Excluding  from  consideration  the  decline  in  Ireland,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  increase  of  the  number  of  inhabitants  between  1841    and   1861  to 

•  lucludes  army,  navy  and  isles  in  British  sen 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 

show  that  any  material  impetus  was  given  to  the  county-  by  the  adoption 
of  free  trade.  The  growth  of  the  nation  following  the  adoption  of  free 
trade  is  dwelt  upon  by  the  free  traders  in  order  to  create  an  impression 
that  the  change  of  policy  revolutionized  affairs  and  set  the  country  going 
at  a  marvelous  pace. 

The  growth  of  the  principal  manufacturing  cities  during  the  last  years 
of  the  protective  policy  is  very  significant.  Their  increase  in  population 
was  in  general  greater  between  1821  and  1841  than  between  1841  and 
186 1,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  table,  taken  from  the  census  report  of 
the  United  Kingdom.  The  most  extraordinary  growth  of  these  cities 
during  both  periods  referred  to  compares  favorably  with  that  of  the  cities 
of  the  United  States.  Their  expansion  was  not  due  to  any  shifting  of 
industries  or  to  causes  other  than  a  natural  growth  brought  about  by  the 
increase  of  factories  and  the  general  advancement  of  industrial  and  commer- 
cial interests. 

The  Increase  in  Population  of  the  Chief  Industrial  Cities  of  England, 
AS  Shown  by  Percentages,  is  as  Follows  ; 

London  increased  between  1S21  and  1841,  41%;  between  1841  and  1861,  19% 
Manchester  and 

Salford  "  "  1S21  "  1841,  90%;  "  1841  "  1861,48% 

Liverpool  "  "  1821  "  1841,107%;  "  1841  "  1861,72% 

Birmiugham  "  "  1S21  "  1841,  79%;  "  1841  "  1861,61% 

Leeds  "  "  1821  "  1841,  81%;  "  1841  "  1861,36% 

Bristol  "  "  1821  "  1841,  47%;  "  1841  "  1861,  23% 

Sheffield  "  "  1821  "  1841,  70%;  "       .1841  "  1861,66% 

Wolver  Hampton  "  "  1821  "  1841,  75%;  "  1841  "  1861,58% 

Bradford  "  "  1821  "  1841,153%:  "  1841  "  1861,59% 
Plymouth      and 

Devonport  "  "  1821  "  1S41,  27%;  "  1841  "  1861,81% 
New    Castle-on- 

Tvne  "  "  1821  "  1S41,  60%;  "  1841  "  1861,62% 

Hull  "  "  1821  "  1S41,  48%;  "  1841  "  1861,45% 

The  development  of  all  of  the  resources  of  the  country  under  pro- 
tection had  presented  a  division  of  occupations,  and  such  a  diversity  of 
pursuits,  that  the  whole  industrial  life  of  the  people  was  well  rounded  out 
and  balanced. 

The  census  of  1841  shows  that,  in  their  occupations,  the  people  were 
divided  as  follows : 

ENGLAND   AND  WALES.  183I.  1S4I. 

Employed  in  agriculture, 31-69  25.65 

"         "  trade,  manufacture,  etc.,      39- n  43o8 

otherwise,      29.20  31.27 

100.  100. 

SCOTLAND. 

Employed  in  agriculture 30.40  27.88 

"  trade,  etc., 43-oo  46.60 

"        otherwise,      26.60  2552 


niOfimN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


GREAT   BRITAIN.  1031. 

Employed  in  agriculture,      3i-5i 

"  trade,  etc., 39-65 

"        otherwise 28.84 


1841. 
25-93 
43-53 
30-54 

100.' 


Ireland. 

The    proportionate    number   of  families  engaged  in   the  principal 
divisions  of  occupations  in  Ireland,  in  1831  and  1841,  were  as  follows  : 


Agriculture 65.7  66.2 

Trade  aud  manufactures i7-4  23.9 

Other  classes, 16.9  9.9 


In  1 84 1  the  great  textile  industries  of  the  countrj'  furnished  employ- 
ment to  1,465,485,  as  follows  : 

Great  Britain. 
Cotton, 377,662 


Hose 

Lace 

Wool  and  wossted, 

Silk 

Flax  and  linen,     . 


Total, 


50,955 
35.346 
167,296 
83.773 
85.213 

800,246 


Of  the  above, 


England  aud  Wales, 618,508 

Scotland 181,738 


Ireland. 


Cotton 

Lace 

Wool  and  worsted. 


6,415 

655 

77.746 

Silk,    770 

Flax  aud  linen, 13S.609 

Fabrics  not  specified, 44i.o44 

Total 665,239 

A  material  increase  of  the  number  of  artisans  employed  in  the 
United  Kingdom  occurred  between  1841  and  1S47,  at  the  very  period 
when  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  was  being  urged,  and  at  a  time  when 
the  free  traders  now  claim  there  was  great  distress  in  tluir   industries. 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 


During  the  eight  years  between   1839  and   1847 
121,240  hands,  or  28.62  per  cent,  as  follows  : 

England  and  Wales, 105,588, 


there  was  an  increase  of 


Scotland, 
Ireland,  . 


7.931 
7.721 


or  30.21  per  cent 
or  13.37  per  cent 
or  51.92  per  cent 


Divided  between  the  five  branches  of  manufacture,  as  follows  : 


Cotton,  . 
Woolen, 
Worsted, 
Flax,  .  . 
Silk,     .    . 


56,942,  or  21.95  per  cent 
18,588,  or  45.27  per  cent 
20,550,  or  45.27  per  cent 
14,771,  or  33.96  per  cent 
10,389,  or  30.27  per  cent 

121,240 


The  above  is  confined  to  those  factories  under  the  supervision  of  the 
go\-erninent  inspectors,  which  did  not  include  all  those  employed  in 
these  branches  of  production. 

The  situation  of  the  farming  interests  of  England  was  entirely  different 
from  that  of  any  other  industry.  Notwithstanding  the  extent  of  their 
foreign  trade  and  the  growth  of  their  manufacturing  and  mining,  it  had 
been  for  centuries  the  chief  means  of  subsistence  of  the  Engli.sh  people. 
From  the  time  of  Elizabeth  it  received  the  patronage  and  encouragement 
of  the  government,  and  its  importance  as  a  chief  means  of  employment 
and  support  for  the  people  had  been  appreciated.  There  is,  perhaps,  no 
country  in  the  world  possessed  of  a  stronger  and  better  soil  and  climate, 
suited  to  the  growth  of  wheat,  oats,  barley,  rj'e,  potatoes  and  the  coarser 
vegetables.  The  numerous  springs,  streams  and  pastures  of  England 
especially  adapted  the  country  to  the  rearing  of  cattle,  sheep  and  swine. 
For  centuries  it  had  been  the  chief  wool-producing  country  in  Europe,  yet 
the  purchase  of  wool  from  Australia  and  the  Continent  had  been  made 
nece.ssary  by  the  vast  expansion  of  the  woolen  manufactures  which  was 
then  going  on.  The  growth  of  agriculture  up  to  1846  had  practically 
kept  pace  with  the  marvelous  increase  in  population.  If  it  had  not  been 
for  the  failure  of  the  harvests  in  three  or  four  seasons,  up  to  this  time  the 
United  Kingdom  would  have  imported  only  a  small  quantity  of  wheat 
There  was,  however,  a  radical  difference  between  absolute  free  trade, 
which  was  sure  to  annihilate  this  important  industry',  and  that  degree  of 
protection  which  would  have  shielded  English  farmers  against  ruinous 
competition  and  preserved  intact  this  vast  field  of  employment  and  great 
source  of  wealth  and  profit,  which  for  centuries  had  made  them  independ- 
ent of  foreign  countries. 

With  a  constantly  increasing  population,  it  is  surprising  to  see  how 
insignificant  the  importation  of  wheat  in  comparison  with  the  home 
supply  must  have  been.     Mr.  Porter  says  upon  this  point: 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


wholly  sup- 
pliedbi 

'dZ-iitr 


111  the  ten  years  from  1801  to  1810  the  average  import  of  wheat  into  the  kingdom 
amounted  to  600,946  quarters;  and  as  the  mean  number  of  the  population  during 
that  period  was  17,442,911  souls,  this  quantity  would  afford  a  very  small  fraction 
above  a  peck  for  the  annual  consumption  of  each  person.  The  average  importation 
in  the  ten  years  between  181 1  and  1820  was  458, 578  quarters;  and  as  the  mean  number 
of  the  population  had  in  that  period  advanced  to  19,870,589,  that  number  of  quar- 
ters would  afford  each  person  one  gallon  and  a  half  toward  the  year's  consumption. 
In  the  third  period,  between  1S21  and  1830,  the  average  annual  importation  advanced 
to  534,992  quarters;  but  the  population  had  advanced  in  an  equal  proportion,  so  that 
the  annual  share  of  each  person  in  the  foreign  supply  remained  the  same  (one  gal- 
lon and  a  half)  as  last  stated.  The  average  amount  of  importation  in  the  ten  years 
from  1831  to  1840  rose  to  907,638  quarters,  and,  the  mean  number  of  the  consumers 
in  this  period  having  been  25,601, 119,  the  importations,  if  fairly  divided  among 
them,  would  have  given  annually  to  each  about  two  and  one-quarter  gallons. 

In  each  of  the  three  periods  of  ten  years  into  which  the  foregoing  statement 
has  been  divided,  up  to  1830,  there  were  two  years  of  large  importation,  arising 
from  deficient  harvests,  and  in  the  last  decennary  period  there  occurred  four  years 
of  this  character.  If  those  )-ears  were  excluded  from  the  calculation,  the  average 
importations  would,  of  course,  be  materially  lessened. 

During  the  la.st  nine  years  of  the  series,  viz.,  from  1841  to  1849,  the  average 
quantity  of  foreign  and  colonial  wheat  and  wheat  flour  taken  for  home  use  advanced 
to  2,588,706  quarters  per  annum,  which  quantity,  divided  equally  among  the 
increased  number  of  consumers,  would  afford  nearly  six  gallons  per  annum  for  each 
person. 

It  will  be  fresh  in  the  memory  of  most  persons  that,  in  addition  to  several  years 
of  somewhat  deficient  harvests,  we  have,  during  the  period  included  in  these  nine 
years,  been  visited  by  one  of  the  severest  calamities  arising  from  the  influence  of 
seasons  which  it  has  been  our  misfortune  ever  to  encounter.  "  The  famine  caused  in 
Ireland  by  the  destruction  of  the  potato  crop  in  1S47  will  long  be  remembered  with 
feelings  of  horror  by  all  who  were  by  any  circumstances  brought  to  a  personal  knowl- 
edge of  its  effect,  and  will  ever  remain  as  a  dark  page  in  our  history.  During  its 
continuance  food  of  various.kinds  was  sought  in  every  market  open  to  us,  the  laws 
regulating  its  importation  were  suspended,  and  our  navigation  law  was  placed  in 
partial  abeyance.  It  must  be  clear  that  under  such  circumstances  it  would  be  idle 
to  attempt  to  draw  any  fair  comparison  between  this  and  other  periods. 

The  foregoing  calculations  show  in  how  small  a  degree  this  country  has  hitherto 
been  dependent  upon  foreigners  in  ordinary  seasons  for  a  due  supply  of  our  staple 
articles  of  food.  It  is  not,  however,  with  this  view  that  those  calculations  are 
brought  forward,  but  rather  to  prove  how  exceedingly  great  the  increase  of  agri- 
cultural production  must  have  been  to  have  thus  effectively  kept  in  a  state  of  inde- 
pendence a  population  which  has  increased  with  so  great  a  degree  of  rapidity. 
To  show  this  fact,  the  one  article  of  wheat  has  been  selected,  because  it  is  that 
which  is  most  generally  consumed  in  England ;  but  the  position  advanced  would  be 
found  to  hold  equally  good  were  we  to  go  through  the  whole  list  of  the  consumable 
products  of  the  earth.  The  supply  of  meat,  during  the  years  comprised  in  the 
inquiry,  has  certainly  kept  pace  with  the  growth  of  population ;  and,  as  regards 
this  portion  of  human  food,  our  home  agriculturists  during  the  largest  portion  of 
the  whole  period  enjoy  a  strict  monopol}'.' 

Mr.    Porter  continues  his  coinptitations,  showing  that  between  1801 
and  1810,  ont  of  a  population  of  11,769,725  persons,  11,168,779  were  fed 


GROWTH  OF  IiXDUSTBIES. 


with  home-grown  wheat,  at  the  rate  of  eight  bushels  per  annum  ;  that  the 
increase  of  home  production  continued  as  the  population  increased  ;  that 
between  1821  and  1830,  out  of  a  population  of  15,465,474,  14,930,482 
persons  were  fed  on  wheat  grown  in  England.  During  the  next  ten  years, 
ending  with  1840,  the  home-grown  wheat  was  suflBcient  for  16,628,188 
persons  out  of  a  population  of  17,535,826.  He  shows  further  that  between 
1841  and  1849  only  375,930  persons  were  fed  on  imported  wheat.  What 
cause  was  there  for  complaint,  under  these  circumstances,  against  the 
agriculturists  ?  It  had  been  demonstrated  during  all  the  years  that  had 
preceded  that  the  farmers  of  England  were  able  to  supply  their  own  home 
market.  Comparing  this  statement  with  the  speech  of  Lord  Derby,  quoted 
later,  upon  the  prices  which  prevailed  during  this  period,  it  will  appear 
that  the  conditions  under  which  the  Manchester  manufacturers  entered 
upon  their  raid  against  the  farmers  presented  no  occasion  for  alarm.  It  is 
apparent  that  it  was  simply  a  movement  on  the  part  of  those  interested  in 
one  industry  to  strike  down  another  for  their  own  profit  and  advantage. 

The  greatest  expansion  and  most  remarkable  growth  is  found  in  the 
cotton  industry.  This  is  due  to  many  causes  apart  from  any  consideration 
of  protection  or  free  trade.  The  use  of  machinery  really  brought  the 
trade  into  existence,  and  its  development  was  rapid.  The  invention  of  the 
cotton-gin,  power-loom,  spinning-jenny,  and  discoveries  in  bleaching  and 
dyeing,  made  it  possible  to  produce  a  fabric  which  could  be  sold  at  a 
very  low  price.  As  an  article  of  clothing  it  was  specially  adapted  to  the 
warmer  climates  to  which  the  English  manufacturers  had  extended  their 
markets.  Even  in  Europe  and  in  temperate  regions  it  was  substituted,  to 
a  large  extent,  for  woolens.  By  1 845  the  exports  of  cottoii  goods  and  yarns 
had  reached  the  sura  of  $130,596,655,  while  the  amount  consumed  at  home 
was  valued  at  two-fifths  of  that  exported,  or  $52, 238, 662 — a  total  production 
of  over  $182,000,000.  There  were  then  spun  in  the  cotton  factories  of 
England  554,196,602  pounds  of  raw  cotton.  Mr.  McCuUoch  says  that  at 
this  time  the  industry  gave  subsistence  to  from  1,000,000  to  1,200,000 
persons.  To  the  persons  directly  employed  there  were  $65,000,000  paid 
in  wages.  In  1847  Mr.  McCulloch  estimated  the  items  which  entered  into 
the  industry  as  follows  : 

Value  of  total  products, $180,000,000 

Raw  materials, $50,000,000 

Wages  paid  weavers,  spinners,  etc., 65,000,000 

Wages  paid  80,000  engineers,  machine-makers, 

smiths,  masons,  joiners,  etc 20,000,000 

Profits  of  manufacturers,  wages  of  superintend- 
ence, the  materials  of  machinery,  coal,  etc.,  45,000,000 
Capital  invested  in  spinning-mills,   power   and 
hand-looms,  workshops,  warehouses,  stock 
on  hand,  etc., 175,000,000 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


TABI.E  No.    2. 

Account  of  the  Total  Quantities  of  Raw  CottoJi  hnported  and  Retaiyied  for 
Home  Consumption  ajid  the  Declared  Value  and  Quantities  of  British 
Cottoji  Manufactured  Goods,  Twist  and  Yarn  Exported  from  the  United 
Kingdo7ti  in  Each  Year,  from  1820  to  i8^g,  both  inclusive. 

[From  McCuUoch's  Com.  Diet.,  Edition  of  1870,  pp.  462  and  468.] 


COTTOK   MANUFACTDRES. 


145.648,6 
1I7.947.I 
124.569.! 


'is 


254.314.7 
210,363.8 

192,478,2 


286,292,9 
302,935,6 
.126,407,6 


250,956,541 
266,495,901 
304,479,691 
301,816,254 
344-651,133 

336,466,698 

267,060,534 
365,492,804 
363,328,431 
402,517,196 
444,578,498 
421,385,303 
461,045,503 
496,352,096 
555,705.809 
557.515.701 
637,667,627 
531.373.663 

690.077,622 

731,450,123 
790,631,997 
751,125,624 


437.093. 

5,11.750,    ....   , 

581.303,105   918,610,205 


658,900,0 

739,6oo,c 

760,900,0 
776,100,0 


1,096,751,823 
1.337.536.116 
1,358,182,941 


2,324,139,085 
2,562,545,476 
2,776,218,427 


66,045,000 
65,964,520 
69,269,770 
64,903.220 
72,241,275 
71,165,050 
49.333.115 

64,740,175 
62.416,245 
"  !,58l,235 


Cotton  Twist 


>,598.l 
'.817.: 


565 
57.503.150 
62,255,300 
70,636,760 
75.907.155 


74.929.050 
64,436,100 
75,842,320 
88,060,730 
90,149,040 
83,508,160 
81,035,515 
78,554,285 

102,652',I75 
110,246,010 
108,242,290 
119.509,550 
117,407,530 
130,617,385 
142,607,795 
143,933.230 
160,2 


>.S70 


3,638,560 
3,590,620 
4,334.430 
4,6oi-,300 
3.678,955 
5.734.940 
5.833.815 
5.209,425 
5,875,765 
5.593.360 
5.875.015 
6,655,585 
5.876.095 
6,201.420 
7,642,625  j 
4,560,960 
5.805,620 
6,568,685 
6,325.450 
6,233,500 
5.103.320 
5,427,680 
6,023,090 
5.631.440 
5,080,730 
5.84'>.7o5 
5.212,560 
6,380,410 


9.976,545 
7.875.110 
7.276,310 


23,032,325 
21,526,369 
26,595,468 


6l,4ll,25l 
64.645,342 
65,821,440 
75.667.1.50 
70,626,161 
76,478.468 


1,198 


14.133,215 
11,529,150 
13,487,950 
13,129,735 
15.676 


.■'.033.645 
17.457.690 
17.727,890 
17.977.025 
19,884,370 
20,668,705 
19.875.095 
23.613,795 
23,520,120 
26,055,075 
28,.S32,q45 


138,510,079 
135.144.865  I 


82,668,770 
80,612,685 
86,395,280 
81,623,57s 
92,252,685 
91.799.995 
70,468,760 

88,203,005 

86,222,085 
87.675.030 
97.143,320 
86,286,020 
86,991,960 

92,432,005 
102,567,930 
110,641,520 

l02i98o!6l5 
120,738,630 
122,751,875 
123..343.240 
117.497.390 
108,395,240 
117.239.855 
129,026,740 
130,596,655 
127.999.130 
116,666,105 
113,406,000 
133.S75.67S 
141,287,005 
1,444,180 


I  47.897,395  , 
47,290,560 
49.354,375  , 


149.,390,435 
163,964,510 
158,729,290 
158,895,705 
191,163,705 
195,367.100 


The  magnitude  of  the  cotton  indiistn-  in  1845  formed  the  principal 
basis  of  the  free  trade  movement.  The  abilitj-  of  the  Manchester  manu- 
facturers to  undersell  all  rivals,  and  as  they  believed,  to  hold  the  advantage 
which  they  then  possessed,  not  only  induced  them  to  abandon  all  protective 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 


legislation  affecting  their  industrj-,  but  made  the  removal  of  protective 
tariffs  in  other  countries,  and  the  opening  of  all  foreign  markets  to  the  free 
sale  of  their  fabrics,  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  them. 

It  is  absurd  to  contend  that  the  revolt  of  the  cotton  manufacturers 
against  protection,  was  in  any  way  caused  by  the  protective  tariff  laws 
which  were  on  the  statute  books  of  England.  The  industry  had  been  built 
up  and  reached  most  marvelous  proportions,  while  England  was  practi- 
cing a  vigorous  policy  of  protection.  Its  expansion  from  1820  to  1846  was 
marvelous. 

The  growth  of  this  industry  is  set  forth  in  Table  No.  2,  from  which 
the  reader  can  ascertain  its  development  during  the  period  in  question. 
An  analysis  of  this  table  by  percentages,  discloses  the  following  increase 
in  its  various  departments,  during  fourteen  years  before  and  fourteen  years 
after  the  adoption  of  free  trade  : 

1831  to  1845.       184s  to  1859. 

Raw  materials  consumed  increased loS  per  cent.  63  per  cent. 

Fabrics  exported  increased  by  yards 159  per  cent.  134  per  cent. 

Fabrics  exported,  declared  value  increased 48  per  cent.  105  per  cent. 

Hosiery  and  small  wares,  declared  value 6  per  cent.  51  per  cent. 

Twist  and  yarn  increased  in  pounds 105  per  cent.  42  percent. 

Twist  and  yarn  increased  by  declared  value 75  per  cent.  35  per  cent. 

Total  exports  increased  by  declared  value 51  per  cent.  84  per  cent. 

During  the  first  years  upon  which  the  computation  is  based  there 
was  a  steady  decline  in  values,  the  most  marked  in  the  history  of  the 
industrj'  ;  while  from  1849  to  1859  there  was  an  advance  in  prices. 

The  decline  in  values  from  1820  to  1849  is  stated  by  Mr.  Porter 
as  follows : 

While  the  number  of  yards  exported  in  1S49  is  greater  by  430  percent  than  the 
number  exported  in  1820,  the  increase  in  the  declared  value  is  only  42  per  cent; 
the  average  price  per  yard,  which  in  1820  was  I2lid.,  having  fallen  in  184910 
3  2-5(/.  The  quantity  of  twist  exported  has  increased  during  the  same  period,  in 
the  proportion  of  6  to  i,  while  the  increase  in  the  declared  value,  is  only  in  the 
proportion  of  about  5  to  2.  The  average  price  of  twist  in  1820  was  2.S.  sYzd.,  and  in 
1849  was  a  little  more  than  ioj{d.  per  pound.' 

The  early  use  of  textile  machinery  by  English  manufacturers  in 
advance  of  other  countries,  gave  them  a  decided  advantage  over  all  rivals. 
The  English  people  having  become  the  great  inventors  of  this  class  of 
machinery  were  enabled,  by  prohibiting  its  export  and  imposing  severe 
penalties  on  the  emigration  of  .skilled  artisans,  to  hold  in  large  measure 
the  advantages  which  .such  improvements  secured.  Had  the  old  method 
of  workmanship  been  continued  in  competition  with  Continental  rivals,  the 
necessity  of  continuing  protective  duties  on  cotton  fabrics  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  conceded  by  Engli.sh  manufacturers  and  no  amount 
of  sophistry  could  have  induced  them  to  expose  their  industries  to  a  ruin- 
ous competition  at  home.     It  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  discuss  this  branch 

1  Process  of  the  Nation,  p.  179. 


Giowth  0/ 
the  cotton 
industry. 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


of  the  question.  The  conditions  under  which  the  industry  was  carried  on, 
its  continuous  growth  and  development  up  to  1S46,  when  placed  in  com- 
parison with  the  growth  which  followed  the  adoption  of  free  trade  is 
important  because  it  completely  annihilates  the  arguments  which  in  recent 
years  have  been  so  frequently  resorted  to  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade  to 
prove  that  the  industries  of  England  languished  under  protection. 

The  policy  of  protection  so  early  adopted  and  so  long  continued,  gave 
domestic  producers  absolute  security  in  the  home  market,  and  incited 
them  to  most  vigorous  action  in  every  department  of  production.  They 
at  once  conceived  the  idea  of  bringing  the  raw  cotton  of  the  world  to  their 
factories  and  by  utilizing  their  fuel,  steam-power,  machinery  and  labor  to 
monopolize  the  trade.  The  policy  which  protected  and  encouraged  their 
own  people  and  intrenched  them  in  foreign  markets,  was  so  successful,  that 
in  1846  they  were  masters  of  the  situation  and  could  defy  all  competitions. 
Only  by  long  years  of  development  could  any  rival  appear  with  strength 
sufficient  to  destroy  or  weaken  their  supremacy. 

As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  the  rearing  of  sheep  and  the  making 
of  woolen  cloths,  were  for  centuries  the  chief  industries  of  the  English 
people.  The  cheapening  of  cotton  fabrics  under  the  new  inventions 
introduced  a  rival  to  the  woolens,  which  somewhat  checked  their  produc- 
tion ;  yet  for  a  long  time  it  held  the  first  place,  and  always  continued 
second  in  importance  among  the  textile  industries.  As  early  as  1825  it 
had  become  so  extensive  that  the  manufacturers  could  no  longer  rely  upon 
domestic  wool  for  their  supply.  The  exportation  of  home-grown  wool  had 
been  prohibited  up  to  1825,  in  order  to  encourage  sheep  raising  in  Eng- 
land, and  to  secure  to  the  British  manufacturer  the  fine  grades  of  wool 
produced  at  home. 

Between  1820  and  1844,  immediately  preceding  the  adoption  of  free 
trade,  there  was  not  only  a  great  increase  in  the  amount,  but  a  marked 
improvement  in  the  quality  of  fane  woolen  cloths.  Mr.  Porter  said,  that 
they  had  become  "in  every  respect  equal  to  the  fabrics  of  France."  This 
is  indicated  by  the  increase  in  their  exports  during  this  time,  which  by 
the  piece  averaged  in  each  year  as  follows: 

Between  1820  and  1824,  1,064,441  pieces. 

Between  1830  and  1834,  1,505,993  pieces. 

Between  1835  and  1839,  1.429,057  pieces. 

Between  1S40  and  1844,  2,128,212  pieces. 

An  increase  of  over  100  per  cent. 
The  increase  in  factories  and  in  hands  employed  between   1835  and 
1839,  was  as  follows: 

In  factories  built,  10  per  cent. 
In  hands  employed,  20  per  cent. 
The  growth  in  population  of  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire,  the 
principal  seat  of  the  woolen  manufacture,  between  1801  and  1841,  was 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTBIES. 


from  563,953  to  1,154,101,  or  104  percent.  The  town  of  Dewsbury,  in 
which  carpets  are  made,  increased  in  population  between  1801  and  1841 
from  11,752  to  23,806,  or  102  per  cent. 

The  steady  growth  of  the  woolen  industry  from  the  close  of  the  Napo- 
leonic wars  up  to  i860  may  be  briefly  pointed  out. 

The  number  of,  sheep  increased  from  19,000,000  in  1800,  to  25,343,000 
in  1825.  The  increase  in  the  consumption  of  wool  from  1800  to  1845  was 
as  follows : 

iScx). 

Domestic  wool  consumed, 94,376,640  pounds. 

Imported, 8,609,368  pounds. 

1845. 

Domestic  wool  consumed, 145,724,880  pounds. 

Imported, 76,813,855  pounds. 

Thus  showing  an  increase  of  over  1 1 5  per  cent. 

Table  No.  3. 

Statement  of  the  Qua7itity  of  Imports  of  Wool  into,  and  the  Declared  Value 
of  the  Exports  of  Domestic  Woolen  and  Worsted  Majiufactures  from, 
the  United  Kingdom,   in  each  year  from   1820  to  1859. 


[Compiled  from  Sessiona 

Papers 

of  the  British  Parliament 

by  Erastus  Bigel 

ow.— The  Tariff  Question, 

pp.  99 

and  100. 

Imports  of 

Raw  Wooi.. 

Exports  of  Woolen  and  Worsted 

Manufactures. 

From  1820  to  1S40. 

From  1R40  to  i860. 

From  1820  to  1840. 

From  1840  to  i860 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

1820 

9,794,620 

1840 

49,436,284 

1820 

f27, 917,150 

1840 

128,904,050 

1S21 

16,632,028 

1841 

56,170,974 

1821 

32,307,835 

184I 

31,504,105 

1822 

19,072,364 

1842 

45,881,639 

1822 

32,423,640 

1842 

29,111,755 

1823 

19,378,249 

1843 

49,243,093 

1823 

28,158,295 

1843 

37,665,600 

.824 

22,572,617 

1844 

65,713,761 

1824 

30,226,190 

1844 

45,815,265 

1S25 

43,837,961 

1845 

76,813,855 

1S25 

31,000,510 

1845 

43,800,215 

1826 

15,996,425 

1846 

65,255,462 

1826 

24,948,265 

1846 

36,216,865 

J827 

29,115.341 

1S47 

62,592,598 

1827 

26,4.7,895 

1847 

39,487,010 

30,236,059 

184S 

70,864,847 

1828 

25,629,915 

1848 

32,554,015 

J  829 

21,516,649 

1S49 

76,768,647 

1829 

23,306,290 

1849 

42,164,730 

1830 

32,305,314 

1850 

74,326,778 

1830 

24,254,220 

50,201,660 

1831 

31,652,029 

1851 

83,311.975 

183 1 

26,948,445 

185? 

49308,635 

1832 

28,128,973 

1852 

93,761,458 

1832 

27,399,325 

1852 

50,779,170 

1833 

38,046,087 

1853 

119,396,449 

1833 

32,703,180 

1853 

58, 144,  ,840 

1834 

46,455,232 

1S54 

106,121,995 

1834 

29,877,065 

1854 

53,391,855 

1835 

42,174,532 

1855 

99,300,446 

1835 

35,748,010 

1855 

48,722,345 

1836 

64,239,977 

1856 

116,211,392 

1836 

39,990  220 

1856 

61.950,350 

'837 

48,379,708 

1857 

129,749,898 

1837 

24,965,585 

1857 

68,225,875 

.838 

52,594,355 

1858 

126,738,723 
133,284,634 

1838 

30,898,025 

1858 

63,719-335 

1839 

57,379,923 

1859 

X839 

33,474,825 

1859 

75,688,845 

MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


Consumption  in  1854. 

Domestic  wool  consumed 200,000,000  pounds. 

Imported 106,000,000  pounds. 

Imports  of  wool  from  Australia  began  about  this  time.  In  1833  they 
had  reached  only  3,516,869  pounds,  while  by  1845  they  had  grown  to 
24,177,317  pounds. 

In  1851  of  the  imports  of  81,000,000  pounds,  51,993,000  pounds 
were  the  production  of  British  possessions  outside  of  Europe.  Of  this 
amount  40,000,000  pounds  came  from  Australia. 

Table  No.  3,  exhibiting  the  total  exports  of  woolen  manufactures 
from  1820  to  1859,  making  an  allowance  for  the  decline  in  prices  occurring 
between  1820  and  1830,  shows  a  steady  and  continuous  increase.  Taking 
a  period  of  fourteen  years  before,  and  fourteen  after,  the  adoption  of  free 
trade,  we  have  the  following  results  : 

Exports  increased,  62.5  per  cent  between  1831  and  1845. 

Exports  increased,  72.8  per  cent  between  1845  and  1S59. 

Further  facts  in  reference  to  this  important  industry  will  be  given 
below  under  a  consideration  of  textile  indu-stries. 

The  linen  industry  gained  a  foothold  in  Ireland  and  Scotland  before  it 
was  taken  up  extensively  by  the  English  people.  Under  the  fostering  care  of 
protective  legislation,  it  had  steadily  increased  during  the  period  in  ques- 
tion. The  quantity  of  raw  flax  and  tow  consumed^  both  imported  and 
home  grown,  greatly  increased.  The  importation  of  linen  yarn  decreased 
from  1827  to  1844,  from  4,000,000  pounds  to  1,000,000  pounds,  and  the 
English  people  ceased  purchasing  these  yarns  from  other  countries  and 
began  their  exportation.  The  shipments  of  yarn  to  France  alone, 
increased  from  76,512  pounds,  in  1833,  to  22,202,293  pounds  in  1842. 
This  indicates  the  development  which  was  going  on  in  France  at  that 
time.  The  exportation  of  linen  fabrics,  as  appears  from  Table  No.  4, 
increased  from  $12,308,115,  in  1831,  to  $20,484,680,  in  1845,  an  in- 
crease of  66.4  per  cent.  This  was  the  period  of  protection,  while  the 
increase  during  the  next  fourteen  years  was  53.2  per  cent,  the  exports 
reaching  $31,395,945.  The  importation  of  flax  increased  51  per  cent, 
between  1831  and  1845,  while  between  1845  and  1859  it  increased  but 
.9  per  cent.  This  decline  in  imports  was  caused  largelj'  by  the  fact  that 
the  farmers  of  England  turned  their  attention,  under  the  advice  of  free 
traders,  to  the  cultivation  of  the  fibre,  as  the  importation  of  agricul- 
tural products  began  to  destroy  their  other  industries.  The  experiment 
was,  however,  short-lived,  because  the  English  maiuifactnrer  began 
purchasing  this  raw  material  so  extensively  in  foreign  parts,  that  the 
advice  of  free  traders  again  proved  an  utter  failure.  Those  industries  in 
which  jute  and  hemp  form  the  raw  materials  have  been  more  largely 
developed  since  i860. 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTSJES. 


Table  No.  4. 
Statement  of  the   Quantity  of  Imports   of  Flax  and   Tow  into,   and  the 
Declared    Value   of  the    Exports   of  Domestic  Lineal   Matiufactures 
from,  the  United  Kingdom  in  Each  Year,  from  1820  to  i8sg. 

[Compiled  from  Sessional  Papersof  the  British  Parliament  by  Erastus  Bigelow.— The  Tariff  Question, 
pp.  96  and  1 


Imports  of  Flax  and  Tow. 

Exports  of  Lin 

EN    MANUFACTDRES. 

From  1831  to  1S40. 

From  1840  to  i860. 

From  1820  to  1840. 

From  1840  to  i860. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

1840 

140,362,880 

1820 

19,483.665 

1840 

$20,644,820 

1821 

1841 

150,846,416 

1821 

11,061,825 

1841 

21,600,105 

1822 

1842 

128,325,008 

1822 

11,865,680 

1842 

16,885,245 

182^ 

1843 

160,960,800 

1823 

11.355.100 

1843 

18,510,265 

^%H 

1844 

177.351,328 

1824 

13,091,490 

1844 

20,377,375 

184s 

158,852,176 

IS2S 

11,536,430 

1845 

20,484,680 

1826 

1846 

128,474,304 

1826 

8,281,765 

1846 

18,531,065 

1827 

1847 

117,833,968 

1827 

10,652,740 

1847 

18,043,720 

1848 

163,930,032 

1828 

10,945.595 

1848 

16,481,190 

1829 

1849 

202,347,376 
204,166,816 

1829 

9,441,190 

1849 

21,129,475 

1830 

1850 

18,0 

10,308,410 

1850 

24,143,465 

18V 

104,878,032 

i8-;i 

133,748,608 

183 1 

12,308,115 

185 1 

25,294,110 

1832 

110,041,792 

i8,S2 

157.775.968 

1832 

8,917.150 

1852 

26,861,755 

1833 

126,518,896 

1853 

1833 

11,195,140 

1853 

29,567,045 

1834 

90,912,864 

I8S4 

145,962,320 

1834 

12,898,280 

1854 

25.264,795 

1835 

82,971,168 

144,864,720 

1835 

16,043,890 

1855 

25,274,970 

1836 

171,260,992 

1856 

188,948,592 

1836 

18,225,485 

18,56 

31,268,800 

1837 

112,096,880 

I8S7 

209,020,000 

1837 

13,065,255 

1857 

30,824,165 

1838 

182,142,912 

I8s8 

143,797,360 

1838 

17,832,170 

18.58 

29,353.480 

1839 

137.054,512 

1859 

160,388,144 

1839 

21,167,255 

1859 

31,395,945 

From  the  earliest  introduction  of  silk  manufactures,  the  English 
people  labored  under  disadvantages  as  compared  with  the  people  of  the 
Continent.  Compelled  to  import  the  raw  material,  and  deficient  in  that 
high  degree  of  skill  which  early  made  French  artisans  famous,  they  could 
not  successfully  compete  with  those  rivals.  Protective  regulations,  how- 
ever, compensated  for  the  disadvantages  under  which  they  labored.  The 
prohibition  of  imports  left  the  English  manufacturer  with  a  monopoly  of 
the  home  market,  subject  only  to  the  competition  of  the  smuggler.  Dur- 
ing the  Napoleonic  wars,  the  necessity  for  revenue  was  so  great  that  the 
principles  of  protection  were  ignored,  and  high  duties  imposed  on  raw 
materials.  In  1826  the  duties  on  raw  silk  were  greatly  reduced  and  the 
fabrics  were  permitted  to  be  imported  upon  the  payment  of  a  duty 
equivalent  to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  which  afforded  ample  protection  to 
the  home  producer.  In  1845  the  small  amount  of  duty  remaining  on 
raw  material  was  removed,  and  the  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent  on 
the  finished  fabrics  reduced  to  15  per  cent.  Protection  to  this  industry  was 
continued  until  i860,  when  by  the  reciprocity  treaty  with  France  the 
duties  were  removed  and  it  was  brought  within  the  policy  of  free  trade  and 
exposed  to  the  competition  of  the  Continent.     Later  the  attention  of  the 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


reader  will  be  called  to  the  disastrous  consequences  of  this  change.  Here 
it  is  only  necessary  to  point  out  the  growth  of  the  industry  under  the 
influence  of  protection.  The  exportation  of  the  manufactured  articles 
increased  from  $2,605,560  in  1830  to  $11,768,060,  in  1859.  Enough, 
however,  appears  from  Table  No.  5,  to  show  the  magnitude  and  growth  of 
the  industry  up  to  1859. 

Table  No.  5. 

Statement  of  the  Quantity  of  Imports  of  Raw  Silk  into,  and  the  Declared 
Value  of  the  Exports  of  Dotnestic  Silk  Manufaetures  from,  the  United 
Kingdom,  in  Each  Year  from  1820  to  iS^g. 

[Compiled  from  Sessional  Papers  of  the  British  Parliament  by  Erastus  Bigelow.— The  Tariff  Question, 
pp.  97  and  100.] 


Imports  of 

Raw  silk. 

Exports  of  Sil 

K   MANUFACTURES. 

From  1820  to  1840. 

From  1840  to  i860. 

From  1820  to  1840. 

From  1840  to  i860. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

1820 

2,641,866 

1840 

4,748,836 

1820 

$1,855,565 

1840 

13,963,240 

1821 

2,542,195 

1841 

4,966,098 

182 1 

1,869,685 

I84I 

3,944,470 

1822 

2,680,568 

1842 

5,785,507 

1822 

1,907,275 

1842 

2,950,945 

1823 

2,880,634 

■843 

5,347,776 

1823 

1,754,395 

IS43 

3,339,760 

1824 

3.477,648 

1844 

6,300,173 

1824 

2,212,860 

1844 

3,682,275 

1825 

3,894,770 

6,328,159 

1825 

1,483,310 

1S45 

3,832,025 

1826 

2,665,225 

1846 

5,735,338 

1826 

841,915 

1846 

4,187,885 

1827 

3.610,727 

1847 

5,598,747 

1827 

1,180,460  . 

1847 

4,928,130 

1828 

4,765.241 

1848 

6,588,755 

1828 

1,278,775 

1848 

2,940,585 

1829 

3.805,933 

1849 

7,034,977 

1829 

1,339.650 

1849 

4,991,670 

1830 

4,318,181 

1850 

7,159,176 

1830 

2,605,560 

1850 

6,278,205 

183I 

4,621,874 

1851 

6,597,178 

1831 

2,894.365 

I85I 

6,633,890 

1832 

4,224,897 

1852 

8,015,211 

1832 

2,649,950 

1852 

7,759,330 

1833 

3,663,679 

1853 

9,436,433 

1833 

3.687,015 

1853 

10,221,805 

1834 

4,848,612 

1854 

10,251,903 

1834 

3,185,985 

1854 

8,461,900 

1835 

5,375.327 

1855 

8,904,630 

1835 

4,868,930 

1855 

7,621,715 

1836 

6,458,030 

1S56 

10,251,903 

1836 

4,589,110 

1856 

14,810,280 

1837 

5,320,965 

1857 

15,035,027 

1837 

2,518,365 

'^57 

14,449,145 

1838 

4,669,484 

1858 

8,513,525 

1838 

3,886,400 

1858 

10,481,500 

1839 

5,014,006 

1859 

12,578,849 

1839 

4,340,590 

1859 

11,768,560 

In  speaking  of  its  flourishing  condition  between  1830  and  1850,  Mr. 
Dunckley  says: 

Besides  maintaining  their  position  in  the  home  market,  our  manufacturers 
pushed  their  sales  abroad,  and  from  1830  a  gratifying  increase  is  perceptible  in  tlio 
value  of  our  silk  exports;  their  total  value  for  the  ten  years  ending  with  1S39,  hav- 
ing been  ^7,042,619,  while  during  the  preceding  decade  their  aggregate  value  IkhI 
amounted  to  no  more  than  ^3, 149,618.  In  Germany  and  the  United  States,  our  fab- 
rics came  into  successful  competition  with  the  products  of  the  French  loom,  and  in 
1844  nearly  three-fifths  of  the  manufactured  silk  exported  to  the  whole  of  Europe 
were  shipped  to  France  itself.  The  secret  of  this  extending  trade  is  found  in  the 
greater  excellence  which  has  marked  our  silk  manufactures  since  1824.' 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 


Mr.  Duuckley  again  says: 

Turning  to  the  reports  of  the  factory  inspectors,  we  find  ample  proof  that  the 
silk  manufacture  is  regarded  as  a  profitable  investment  by  those  who  have  the  best 
means  of  being  informed  respecting  it.  During  the  last  year,  twenty  new  factories 
have  been  built  and  set  in  motion,  eleven  of  which  are  intended  for  "throwing" 
onlv,  four  for  spinning  only,  one  for  spinning  and  weaving,  and  four  for  weaving 
only.  Our  imports  of  raw  .silk,  which  in  1842,  amounted  only  to  3,856,867  pounds, 
were  4,385, 107  pounds  in  1850,  and  the  value  of  our  exports  last  year  showed  an 
advance  of  more  than  half  a  million  sterling  upon  that  of  1842.' 

Table  No  6  exhibits  the  foreign  trade  of  the  United  Kingdom  in 
the  several  branches  of  the  great  iron  and  steel  industry  of  the  country. 
The  magnitude  of  this  department  of  production  in  1845  is  not  only  dis- 
closed by  the  table  in  que.stion,  but  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  McCulloch  who 
shows  that  from  the  furnaces  of  the  countiy  in  that  year,  there  were 
produced  1,750,000  tons  of  pig  iron,  and  that  in  the  various  processes 
nece.ssary  for  the  production  of  iron  and  steel,  9,125,000  tons  of  coal 
were  consumed.  The  exports  of  pig  iron  in  1845,  were  80,000  tons  ; 
of  bar  iron,  154,000  tons  ;  and  the  exports  of  all  sorts  of  iron  in  1847, 
amounted  to  400,000  tons,  which  at  $50  per  ton,  yielded  $20,000,000. 
The  pig  iron  produced  at  $30  a  ton,  was  worth  $52,500,000,  and  the 
additional  labor  expended  in  forming  the  pig  iron  into  bar  iron,  that 
is,  into  bars,  bolts,  rods,  etc.,  probably  added  about  $17,500,000  more  to 
its  value. '^ 

With  the  exception  of  a  small  amount  of  Swedish  iron,  about  20,000 
tons,  imported  for  making  steel,  the  entire  iron  industry  of  the  country, 
was  based  on  the  raw  material  taken  from  their  own  mines. 

Considered  by  percentages,  during  the  fourteen  years  which  preceded 
the  adoption  of  free  trade,  and  the  fourteen  years  which  followed,  the 
exports  increased  at  the  following  rates  : 

1831  to  1845.  1S45  to  1S59 

The  exports  of  brass  and  copper, 110.9  per  cent  53.5  per  cent 

Hardware  and  cutlery 34.5  per  cent  74.4  per  cent 

Iron  and  steel 211.5  per  cent  251.0  per  cent 

Lead  and  shot, 119.0  per  cent  127.9  per  cent 

Plate,  plated  ware,  jewelry  and  watches 56.3  per  cent  68.2  per  cent 

Tin  and  manufactures  of  tin,  pewter,  and  tin  plate,  122.9  per  cent  177-8  per  cen 

Total  exports 1 23.1  per  cent  167.4  per  cent 

The  processes  of  production  were  so  improved,  that  a  great  fall 
prices,  especially   in   hardware   and    cutlery,    took   place   between    1830 
and   1845.     Mr.    McCulloch  says,    "In   some  articles  the  fall   exceeded 
So  per  cent,   and  there  are  but  few  in  which  it  does  not  exceed  30  per 
cent."  ■' 

'  The  Charter  of  the  N.itions,  pp.  190-91.  -  McCuIloch's  Commercial  Dictiouary,  pp.  783-4. 

-^Commercial  Dictionary,  p.  660. 

s 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


^  ^  -I 
H  --5    i 


^    1 


^     a 

^  i 


1 1 


;;  r^  rC^O  rC  ON  cf-  (N  — '  I-*  "-'  '-'  >-  "'  '^jCO  lo  c5  'i"  t^  ^  r^\d CC^  J2  ^  J.  | 


ipO  O  >0  0  ID  c 


.a3>ai 


to  O    C>  O    0    O   t^OO    CT>00    OS  OSOO  CO    OV  -  SO_  N   <s    rO  0_  0_  0_C0    ^^  ^  ". 


M    O    lO  t-~  Tf  rOOO_  I 


ioOOOO>oQOOQQ>OQP 


o  o  lo  o  o  q  o 


^8Rg>S 


fOCO    ro  OM^  OO 


.OS--  t^r^os^  r»  t^M   rOO 


■)nnnin»nooOioOOioOO»00>OOto»oQ>o»oO»r)Oy£J 

5  Sj^S  8-^i!?&-^(J5  gSvSirttivo  o  r-o^-5  M  OS  g;°o  ^  ;S' S:  ^^ 

OcJ-(>^r5o:c5    4^^jO(>^^^<»    rpvDOO    ^^^CO    ^VO    OS  Q  CO 


■8^ 


:?,8^5 


~i  o^  cT  I 

-  ^__  c^  1  _ 
■; «'  i-c  t^  dwiSix^D  CO  o  o  o  I 


^5  8  Ss^8s5;C!;??>8  ^2  g:?^8^5  ^8  8  2  l^g'gl 

5  35  OS  1--5  ^00  o<  i^  o  to  o  >o  -^o5_  -^  t^oo_  H._  Tf  M_vD  q,  !n  so  t  f^  t^: 
rOforTfiM'NNfOf^-^*^*^^'^'^'^"^  "^^  ^  '^  ^^  CO  CO  CO  r^  r^ 


-  \n\o  r^co  OS  c 


?00  00  M  !^CO  »  00  00 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTBIES. 


■i 

1 

^""^"""""""" 

1,1 

l"i 

^                                     "   "   "   "   " 

1 

1 
1 

t2vo    S  K  8^  I^CC    -O  ro5   t^  <N 

•3    S 

in 

W 

"^ m" ^ 3^ I? «' »  S^m" 8  «' 2" 

■0    . 

is 

vo  S  cSoT  oT  CT^M  0  J^  ^  2"  ^ 

I 

tf^s^^^^^^^^ 

MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


Enough  has  been  shown  to  prove  the  steady  advance  made  in  this 
industrj',  during  the  whole  period  in  question,  and  it  maj'  be  further  illus- 
trated by  the  production  of  pig  iron,  which  was  as  follows  : 

1820 400,000  tons. 

I.S40, 1,500,000  tons. 

1849, 2,000,000  tons. 

1851, 2,500,000  tons. 

The  2, 500,000  tons  made  in  185 1 ,  required  the  production  of  7,000,000 
tons  of  ore,  2,700,000  tons  of  limestone,  and  13,000,000  tons  of  coal,  involv- 
ing the  labor  of  over  700,000  hands,  directly  or  indirectly  employed. 

In  considering  the  importance  of  this  branch  of  employment,  the 
smaller  industries  should  not  be  lost  sight  of.  In  1841  there  were  em- 
ployed in  England  as  follows  :  Blacksmiths,  36,222  ;  nail-makers,  97,340  ; 
brass  founders,  13,064  ;  makers  of  cutlery,  11,075  ;  makers  of  needles  and 
pins,  3854;  boiler-makers,  3479;  file-makers,  529S  ;  locksmiths,  5521; 
makers  of  tin  plateware,  9670  ;  besides  a  large  number  making  anchors, 
chains,  cables,  anvils,  bits,  bolts,  coke,  files,  grates,  ranges,  stoves,  rivets, 
shot,  springs,  stirrups,  spurs,  wire,  etc.,  etc. 

Table  No.  7  exhibits  the  exports  of  many  sorts  of  articles  of  lesser 
importance  than  tho.se  already  mentioned,  but  showing  the  wide  range  of 
enterprise  in  whiclj  the  capital  and  energy  of  the  English  people  were 
being  employed.  The  articles  included  in  this  table  were  those  in 
which  hand  workmanship  was  still  largely  employed.  The  introduction 
of  machinery  with  new  devices  came  later  than  in  the  production  of  textile 
industries.  A  summary  of  the  exports  of  this  class  of  articles,  showing 
the  increase  by  percentages  during  the  years  preceding  1845,  and  those 
terminating  with  1859,  is  as  follows  : 

1831  to  1S45.  1S45  to  1S59. 

Apparel,  etc.  increased loi  per  cent  191  per  cent 

Anns,  etc.  {decreased  from  1831  to  1845),     .        7  per  cent  20  per  cent 

Beer  and  ale, 171  per  cent  3S2  per  cent 

Books  and  print,      84  per  cent  156  per  cent 

Coal  and  culms, 3S7  per  cent  235  per  cent 

Earthenware  of  all  sorts 79  per  cent  59  per  cent 

Haberdashery  and  millinerj- 103  per  cent  406  per  cent 

Gla.ss,  all  sorts  (decreased  from  1S31  to  1845),      16  per  cent  69  per  cent 

Leather,  wrought  and  unwrought,         ...      42  per  cent  387  per  cent 

Oil,  hempseed,  linseed  and  rapeseed,    ...  .    .  463  per  cent 

Other  articles, 24  per  cent  173  per  cent 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  foregoing  tables  and  facts  relate 
to  the  export  trade  and  domestic  productions  alone.  While  these  in  their 
magnitude  and  importance  surpassed  all  other  countries,  the  home  trade 
was  also  controlled  and  monopolized  by  English  manufacturers.  Under 
protection  and  by  means  of  the  efficiency  of  the  artisans  and  macliinerj-, 


GROWTH  OF  JNDUSTBIES. 


O  O  QiOiOQioOO  O  Q  O  O  OiOO  O  O  O  OiOii^iOmiOO  0iO»O 
r^  !•-.  <N  'IX;^  -^X^  "}  lO  ^  '^  CT^CO    rO  Ov  O  X    rDO)    -h    r^  fOvO    <N    <-■    cOl^  rO  O    O 

CO  ^-,t^•^a^0^^llo«  r-,^nvo  O  i^co  -rj-  6  O  oj  On  rooo  fO  t^i*^  w  \S  fO 
'^  "^  9.  "3  ^'  ^  "-D  "^^^  "^  9,^^^,  '^'^  ^  VO  -rj-  t--,  Tj-  (JN  rO  rOOO  -^  a>CO  -^vO 
hJ"  w"  hT  hT  fO  rf  oi  r^f  -r^f  uS  lO  rT  rf  rf  vo"  -^00*  rTtw"  rO  rOGO"  -^  cf^vO'  «/>  -<^  rf  m' 


C^.^ 


.  JOO^O 


S  M^  f„       cr.  ji'O  "3^_  ■-;  o_  ^  ON  lOOT  o_  ^  a<  ro  < 


tS     & 


go 


||-= 


.-Ht^^ONtNONO-^^' 


■  !>■ -^  rO  "-I    P4    rOVO^ON-^t-^ 

)  a>  -^  CO  ro  COCO  m  ^  G^'^  \r> 
•-T  (N  IN  f^.\d  uS  ^  r^  a>a)"oo" 


_____       .   -    O   C>vO  t^W   lor^i-iCO   CT^^CS  ^VD  CT\  \n\D  c 
W   r^  c^O)  00    O   <-«    lO^O    On  t^  P)  ^  ^    W   lOVO  CO    u-,CO   S  C^  tN  <»    t 


loinOioOOtnOO 
C  ir>  <N  fO  o  0>co  ^  o 

O^  rri  d^  -^  C^'>CZO'^\D 


Q   O   O   O  ^  O^^  8vo88'^°°2'-^-'^°"^°    OiOOOO   Q  O  lO  lO 

r--  o^xi  o^  I--  CO  •-  r-*co  OMyj  >—  i>.in  C7^x  t^  o  a^  n  lo  ■^co  t^vo  m '—  ao  *-" 

O    lOX)  -sO    O  CO    I-    lO  lO^    Q   !>■  -^  rO  -^vO    t^-    rTi  G^  O    lOONrOO    t^^C  vO  \0 

co-^-i--^t--i->co  Mco__a;_o_r^-ico  >-  on'-'MD  o  on^o  r^^o  lo  o  ^  rt  r^  lo 
n  ri  n  cT  <N  -f  <n  ro  r^  n  tO  ri"  co  ro  -^  f^  "^  fO  -^  -^  lo  lovd  \0  lovo  rC  lovo 


loO  lOO  Si»r^C>"5Q0Q':nQ  mO  O  vpO  OmO  »oQ  looioimo 
tjNfO'-H  M  cSo  n  ^n -t  Q  '^  Q  \D  -^  i^r^HH  o  i-  nv£)  r-^  in<X>  o  ^  o  O  t>. 
r^N  r^r^'^coi-^r^OvO'^Oco  in  mco  m  >-*  \d  <-*  roioCTNt^r^ONfO  irnoo 

CO  r^jVO  rO  "^  -^  r^  ON  CO  <n"vO  O  N  OcO  lOCH  i-"  lO"-"  CN  c5^C^uS'-''r^^O^Ca^ 
ON-TiDO  nvD  »On  ->0Ot^I>.  UO^X>  vO  lO^-Tj-cOtN  i-'VO  (N  cOrOrOlDi-i  -^ 
a>_^^^CNv£3MTt  t^CO  rDvO    -^  c^CO  CO  CO    "^  -^  ^  lOCO    O  VD    CN    •-"    Q    «    rO 

^^  m'  m"  hT  kT  m'  Cf  N   w"  W"  CO  rO  fO  fO  -^  -^  4  uS  lO^O  VO^'oo'  O*  pT  -^\D   in^" 


^  OMo  ID  CO  a^\o  ^  ^  ^  ^  t^  ^  rn 

r)\o  \D    !>.  to  ON  -«    O    CO^  ^O    t^'sO    ON 
I>.GO    ONCO    0    O^  O    >->    cO-^CS    MCOi-i    ^    ON 


)LO»oQ  O  uoo  QO  OQtomo  io>oioQ  >r>o  O  iTJiOO  lOiOu-jioiO 

ONCO    Qnr-.'-    ONtN>HOOiOr-.n    On  O^^O    <N    r--  •-<    rOCO    lO  (N    --I    CO  r-vo 

d\Tf  kT  CTN^  io\j3  •-«"  "-TcTod  lo^d  locdcd  cT  t-T  co  in  co'O  -^  -^f  lo  •-'"co''  ►-T 
•-■  CO  <o  -^  uTX)  ccN'-'O'-'^ooONO'-'irjON  ONCO  r^  lo  r--  on  r^>>o  loco 
o_  q^  ON  -_  ro  fo  lo  ON  «_oo_  t^  ON  -  ^_  ON  q^  o_  q^  r^co_^  *"r  1:  "}  '^  *^_  ^  ^_  "5 
'»-i^       hHHHM'">-r^'rrM>-.i-«noi>-«c*«ciMCN  m\C  vo  vO  i>.  t^  On  O 


lOO   lOiOO   O   UDiC»O0    I 

.co\5covo  cow  coo  0a5  < 
r^co  I-"  CO  •^t^vovS  loco  i 
)  -^  CO  in  r^^D  locd  CO  Q  oo  od  on  "--^  -^  cox"  t-^'O  o  I 

cO'O   lO  O    O   '^'O  OnO   I>.C7NONONiO'rf"^GNr^'^i 


3  ^  cOX^  "^  O  r^NO 
:i  r^vb  r^^O  CO  '-'"  N  -t  -i-'-D  lo  r^  -^^^  -"  -^  co -^  t--cO  to  co  i-'  ---^  —  vd>0  vd 
N  cOX  X  't  r^  CO  ON^  <-  ON  r~-iO  -Tj-  ONVD  N  "O  rhX  cO  rO  *0  cOX  CT\  ■-.  i^ 
O  '-'  "^O^D  t:T\iO'-'  OnmD  O  I-"  r^  t~^  lO  ONX  lOOtNX  (^"^O  r^t^ON 
"wrrwcOMCrcOCOcincOcOcOcOcOcTcO'!?^  -^vd  CO  "^  d\6  G^O 


)  \D    O  "O  X  NO 


CO-^IOKD  r^X   ON  O  '-'  M   CO -^  lovo  r-x   On  o  »■ 


-  lOVD   l-^X   ON 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

this  market  had  been  kept  to  themselves.  Considering  the  wealth  and 
population  of  the  country,  it  must  have  been  important.  There  being 
no  authentic  sources  of  information  upon  the  total  production  and  inland 
trade,  no  estimates  will  be  made. 

The  subjoined  Table  No.  8,  presents  a  general  view  of  the  external 
trade  of  the  United  Kingdom  from  1793  to  1859,  covering  the  period  of 
protection  up  to  1846,  and  of  free  trade,  or  partial  free  trade,  as  it  is 
called  by  some,  from  1846  to  i860.  The  mode  of  entering  articles  at  the 
Custom  House  during  this  period,  together  with  fluctuations  in  prices 
of  commodities,  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  estimating  the 
growth  of  trade  when  making  comparisons  with  other  periods,  or  in 
making  comparisons  between  those  years  when  the  industries  were  under 
protection,  and  the  years  that  followed  the  removal  of  duties. 

There  were  two  methods  of  estimating  the  value  of  articles  upon 
which  the  duties  were  collected,  and  imports  and  exports  computed.  One 
method  of  entry  was  by  the  official  valuation,  under  which  the  value  of 
each  article  was  fixed  by  law.  The  first  four  columns  on  the  left-hand 
side  of  the  table  show  the  imports  and  exports  at  their  official  valua- 
tion. The  imports  were  not  entered  at  anj'^  other  valuation  until  1854. 
The  other  method  of  entry  was,  by  what  was  known  as  the  declared 
valuation,  that  is,  the  value  stated  in  the  declaration  or  bill  of  lading 
accompanying  the  goods  for  import  or  export,  being  the  value  placed  on 
the  articles  by  the  exporter  or  importer.  The  fifth  column  shows  the 
declared  or  real  value  of  the  exports  of  domestic  produce  during  this  time. 
The  next  two  columns  exhibit  the  excess  of  one  valuation  over  the  other. 
The  official  valuation  not  having  been  changed  during  the  period,  repre- 
sents a  fair  index  of  the  general  growth  of  the  industries  based  upon 
uniform  and  stable  prices.  It  is  in  part  equivalent  to  measuring  the 
growth  of  trade  by  quantities.  The  next  two  columns  representing  the 
balance  of  trade  show  that  during  all  this  time  the  balance  of  trade, 
according  to  official  valuation,  was  greatly  in  favor  of  the  English  people. 
Without  having  the  real  value  of  imports  during  this  time,  trustworthy 
comparison  with  later  periods  cannot  be  made. 

The  literature  of  free  traders  is  filled  with  comparisons  which  are  very 
misleading  and  deceptive.  Mr.  David  A.  Wells,  an  eminent  free  trade 
authority,  in  his  article  on  free  trade,  in  the  ' '  Encyclopoedia  of  Political 
Science,"  Vol.  II,  page  298,  in  attempting  to  prove  that  protection  had  an 
injurious  effect  on  English  commerce,  said,  "Under  the  most  stringent 
system  of  protection  ever  known  in  Great  Britain,  the  growth  of  British' 
exports,  commencing  with  1805,  was  as  follows  :  1805,  $190,000,000  ;  1825, 
$194,000,000  ;  net  increase  in  twenty  years,  $4,000,000,  or  at  a  rate  of 
$200,000  per  annum."  It  is  surprising  that  so  eminent  an  author  as  Mr. 
Wells  should  fall  into  such  an  error  as  is  disclosed  by  the  figures  which  he 
presents.    While  on  their  face  they  are  substantially  correct  the  conditions 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 


d, 

s 

■^ 

O) 

^ 

s 

^ 

^ 

^— ' 

1 

■g 

•So 

si  ^ 


^  ^    -^i, 
d  ■§     !^     ^' 

•^  -S  -S 


^  S 

^:|' 


it 

1  ^ 

Total. 

Total 
Foreigu 
Trade. 

I 

f 

■og^- 

11^ 

; :^s^ls^ls5  :;:::;:::;■: 

O'  ■*  "5  f^vo  cfoT  r^  (N- 

.   .^K^S§S5fr'"^£^ 

l"l 

pi 

^Rlg^lS^SS-.S^^^K^ 

0  r^a>-vO  -J-^  ^c^csvo  - 

"Sr^TTUO^-a-wt^O-^ 

till 

1 1 

11 

> 

i 

i 
5 

^ 

1 

„         ^?is8|^^^^2  8  8  22|SKa?;g^H^ 
°      1  ^n^&M^Sf^f  ^i^4=§^'^'sEsll 

1 

igllllllllllllllllllltl 

3I0DERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


it 
1 5 

y?  ?,  S.  iPvS  IG 

uS  -j^  0  cT  a.  -■ 

0^  r^  1--  !N   O^  ON 

.sc-5  SS^ 

1 

i 

£ 

3 
^ 

II 

5  =  ^ 

^-N 

'S 

c 

5 

1 

00 

11 

So^S^dot-RSw  (K  CO  ^  cs  «  ^:  TT  ^M  t^  n  S  CO  a>  -a-  -  covD  «  r^ 

i 

1  1 

o 
1 

S 

rt 

11 

1 

1 

11 

^ 

^^M^^^B^^Si^^B^^^^^^i^^^M 

GROWTH  OF  IXDUSTEIES. 


upon  which  they  are  based  justify  no  such  conch:sion  as  he  attempts  to  draw 
from  them.  The  superficial  examination  which  Mr.  Wells  must  have 
made  led  him  into  the  error,  which  is  committed  so  often  by  all  those 
economic  writers  who  fail  to  examine  the  facts  and  conditions  which  deter- 
mine the  real  force  of  economic  propositions.  If  Mr.  Wells  had  examined 
the  fluctuations  in  prices  of  commodities  during  the  period  in  question  he 
undoubtedly  would  have  withheld  his  statement. 

The  discrepancy  between  the  figures  given  by  Mr.  Wells,  and  those 
contained  in  the  table  referred  to,  does  not  materially  affect  the  question. 
It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that,  following  the  breaking  out  of 
the  Napoleonic  wars  in  1793,  through  the  suspension  of  specie  payments, 
the  issuing  of  paper  money  and  other  causes,  prices  at  once  advanced  to  an 
almost  unheard  of  point,  and  then  at  its  termination  about  1819,  upon  the 
resumption  of  specie  payment,  a  most  sudden  fall  in  prices  took  place, 
which  continued  until  about  1841.  The  value  of  British  exports  was  also 
affected  by  the  introduction  of  machinery  and  improved  methods,  which 
greatly  reduced  their  cost  of  production.  The  sudden  fluctuations  in  values 
during  the  time  referred  to  by  Mr.  Wells,  is  very  clearly  illustrated  by  the 
following  diagram  : ' 


1841-50, 1851-60, 1861-70, 1871-80, 1881-84. 


/io- 


A.  Agriculture.    B.  Manufactures.    C.  General  Level. 

The  reader  will  note  that  Mr.  Wells  in  selecting  1 805  as  the  basis  of 
his  comparison,  picked  out  a  year  when  the  prices  of  manufactures  had 
reached  their  highe.st  point.  The}'  had  advanced  about  forty  per  cent 
over  twelve  years  before.  He  then  says  that  the  exports  in  1825  were 
worth  only  $194,000,000,  a  net  increase  in  twenty  years  of  $4,000,000,  or 
of  only  $200,000  a  year,  a  verj-  small  increase  indeed  and  a  very  poor 
showing  for  protection  ;  but  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
prices  by  this  time  (1825)  had  fallen  forty  per  cent,  and  were  down  to 
the  level  of  1793,  an  entirely  different  phase  of  the  situation  is  presented. 

'  Mulhall's  History  of  Prices,  p.  131. 


Fluciua- 
''Vlcef 


Decline  ii, 
of  cotton. 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

If  the  $194,000,000  of  British  exports  of  1825  had  been  sold  at  the  prices 
which  prevailed  in  1805,  instead  of  having  $194,000,000  of  exports  and  an 
increase  of  only  $4,000,000,  the  exports  would  have  been  $271,000,000, 
an  increase  of  $77,600,000,  instead  of  $4,000,000,  a  good  showing  foi 
protection. 

It  appears  from  Table  No.  8,  that  in  1805  the  real  or  declared  value 
of  the  exports  was  $71,635, 125  more  than  their  official  vshx^.  While  in 
1825  prices  had  so  declined  that  the  iral  value  of  the  exports  was 
$41 ,878,460  less  than  the  official  value.  By  an  examination  of  the  official 
values,  as  represented  by  the  fourth  column  of  the  table  referred  to,  it  will 
appear  that  by  the  official  valuation  the  total  exports  ( based  on  uniform 
prices),  were  valued  at  $152,602,455  in  1805,  while  by  the  same  valu- 
ation they  had  increased  to  $278,041,35  in  1825,  or  an  increase  of  $125,- 
439,180,  or  82  per  cent.  From  this  illustration  the  reader  will  note  the 
importance  of  studying  prices,  and  those  conditions  which  tend  to  disturb 
settled  business  conditions,  in  order  to  measure  properly  the  growth  of  the 
trade  of  nations. 

On  this  point  Mr.  McCulloch  says  : 
The  increase  in  the  oiBcial  and  the  decline  in  the  real  value  of  the  exports  since 
1S15  have  given  rise  to  a  great  deal  of  irrelevant  discussion.  It  has  been  looked  upon 
as  a  proof  that  our  commerce  is  daily  becoming  less  prosperous,  whereas,  in  point  of 
fact,  a  precisely  opposite  conclusion  should  be  drawn  from  it.  But  the  circumstance 
of  a  manufacturer  or  merchant  selling  a  large  or  a  small  quantity  of  produce,  at  the 
same  price  affords  no  criterion  b}'  which  to  judge  as  to  the  advantage,  or  disadvantage 
of  the  sale  ;  for  if,  in  consequence  of  improvements  in  the  arts  or  otherwise,  a  partic- 
ular article  may  now  be  produced  for  half  the  expense  that  its  production  cost  ten  or 
twent)'  years  ago,  it  is  obvious  that  double  the  quantity  of  it  may  be  afforded  for  tlie 
same  price  without  injury  to  the  producers.  Now  this  is  the  case  with  some  of  the 
most  important  articles  exported  from  England.  Cotton  and  cotton  yarn  form  a  full 
half  or  more  of  our  entire  exports;  and  since  1814  there  has  been  an  extraordinary 
fall  in  the  price  of  these  articles  occasioned  partly  by  cotton  wool  having  fallen  about 
IS.  6d.  to  about  S'/id.  per  pound,  but  more  by  the  improvements  in  the  manufacture. 
To  such  an  extent  have  these  causes  operated  that  yarn  No.  40  which  cost  in  1S12  2s. 
6d.,  cost  in  1843,  ()'Ad.  ;  in  1812  No.  60  cost  t,s.  6d,;  in  1843  it  cost  15.  ^d.  ;  in  1812, 
No.  80  cost  45.  40'.,  in  1S43  it  cost  Js.  4d.,  and  so  on,  and  in  the  wea\-ing  department 
the  reduction  has  been  similar.  Hence,  while  the  official  value  of  the  cotton  goods 
and  yarn  exported  has  increased  from  about  18,000,000  pounds,  in  1814,  to  above 
68,500,000  pounds,  in  1842,  their  real  or  declared  value  has  only  increased  from  above 
20,000,000,  in  1814,  to  21,675,000  pounds  in  1842.' 

The  decline  in  prices  of  manufactures  continued  until  about  1849,  at 
which  time  an  advance  occurred,  continuing  until  1870.  This  important 
consideration  cannot  be  ignored  in  making  fair  comparison  of  the  growth 
of  the  external  trade  of  England  during  this  period.  The  diagram  pre- 
sented, exhibiting  the  fluctuations  in  prices,  exposes  one  of  the  most 
common  deceptions  practiced  bj-  free  trade  writers,  in  attempting  to  create 
a  wrong  impression  of  the  influence  of  a  protective  tariff  in  England. 

•  Commercial  Dictionary,  p.  ri? 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 


Taking  the  whole  external  trade  of  the  United  Kingdom  during  the  period 
in  question,  viewing  it  from  a  rational  consideration  of  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances existing  at  the  time,  we  find  a  stead}-  and  constant  increase  up 
to  1846,  which  continued  from  that  time  until  i860.  An  analysis  of 
Table  No.  8  shows  the  following  result  when  considered  in  percentages  : 


Per  cent  of 

1831  to  1845. 
73      per  cent. 


128.9  per  ceut. 
122. 1  per  cent. 


1 17.9  per  cent. 


Imports  (Official  value) 73      percent.       74.7  per  cent 

Exports,  British  produce  and  manufactures 

(Official  value) 123.6  per  cent.     121. 2  per  cent. 

Exports,  foreign  and  colonial  produce 

(Official  value) 5i-5  per  cent. 

Total  Exports  (Official  value), 112.7  per  cent 

Exports,  Domestic  produce  and  manufactures 

(Real  value) 63.2  per  cent 

The  percentages  given  above  represent  the  increase  during  the  four- 
teen years  before  the  adoption  of  free  trade  and  the  fourteen  years  which 
followed.  During  the  whole  of  the  first  period  there  was  a  slight  decline 
in  prices  ;  while  in  the  years  following  the  adoption  of  free  trade,  there  was 
an  advance  in  prices.  During  the  latter  period  the  building  of  railroads  and 
steamships,  and  the  increased  supply  of  the  precious  metals,  brought  about 
an  activity  in  business,  to  which  the  improvement  in  foreign  trade  of  Great 
Britain  may  be  attributed,  together  with  one  other  fact  of  great  importance. 
By  the  low  tariff  adopted  in  the  United  States  in  1846,  an  unusual  expan- 
sion of  the  exports  of  British  manufactures  occurred  to  that  country. 

That  it  was  the  reduction  of  duties  in  the  United  States  and  other 
countries  which  contributed  to  the  expansion  of  English  trade,  the  people 
of  those  countries  well  knew  from  the  depressed  and  crippled  condition  of 
their  industries  when  subjected  to  English  competition,  although  it  has 
been  constantly  urged  that  the  increase  of  exports  which  took  place  was 
due  to  the  free  trade  measures  adopted  by  the  British  parliament. 

A  fuller  discussion  of  the  effect  of  the  low  tariff  of  1846  will  be  given 
in  connection  with  the  treatment  of  the  tariff  question  in  the  United 
States.  The  purpose  of  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  was  in  part  being 
accomplished  by  the  surrender  of  the  markets  of  the  United  States  to 
British  manufactures. 

The  foregoing  facts  and  figures,  compiled  from  the  most  reliable 
authorities,  ought,  for  themselves,  to  be  sufficient  proof  of  the  steady 
growth  of  English  industry  during  the  period  in  which  the  policy  of 
protection  was  maintained.  It  must  be  apparent  from  the  utterances  of 
eminent  English  writers,  which  are  given  below,  that  the  statements  of 
professional  free  traders  to  the  effect  that  Engli.sh  industries  were  being 
ruined  by  protection,  were  pure  fabrications.  The  following  quotations, 
written,  nearly  all,  between  1845  and  1854,  are  taken  from  the  works  of 
men  who  advocated  the  doctrines  of  free  trade,  with  the  exception  of 


free  trade 
andprotec- 


Indusirial 
progress 
under  pro- 
Contem- 
Engh'sk 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 


Archibald  Alison,  the  eminent  historian,  who  was  a  protectionist  and 
certainly  a  very  trustworthy  authority  upon  the  condition  of  English 
industries  between  1815  and  1845.  Writing  in  1845  a  review  of  the 
period  between  1815  and  1845,  Alison  said  : 

Considered  in  one  point  of  view,  there  never  was  a  nation  whicb,  in  an  equal 
space  of  time,  had  made  so  extraordinary  a  progress.  Its  population  had  advanced 
from  20,600,000  in  1819  to  28,000,000  in  1844;  its  imports  had  increased  from 
/30, 000, 000  in  the  former  period  to  ^^70, 000, 000  in  the  latter;  its  exports 
had  advanced  during  the  same  period  from  ^44,000,000  to  /i30,ooo,ooo  ; 
its  shipping  from  2,650,000  tons  to  3,900,000.  There  never,  perhaps,  was  such  a 
growth  in  these  the  great  limbs  of  industry  in  so  short  a  period  in  any  other  State. 
Nor  had  agriculture  been  behind  the  other  staple  branches  of  national  industry. 
Its  produce  had  kept  pace  with  the  income,  unparalleled  in  an  old  State  in  the 
population,  as  well  as  the  still  more  rapid  multiplication  of  cattle  and  horses  for  the 
puqjoses  of  use  and  luxury ;  and  amidst  this  extraordinary  growth  of  consumption, 
the  still  more  extraordinary  fact  was  exhibited  of  the  average  importation  of  grain 
steadily  declining  from  the  commencement  of  the  century,  till  at  length,  anterior 
to  the  six  bad  seasons  in  succession,  which  commenced  iu  1S36,  it  had  sunk  to 
400,000  quarters  on  an  average  of  the  five  preceding  years,  being  scarce  an  hundred 
and  twentieth  part  of  the  annual  consumption  of  men  and  animals,  which  exceeds 
60,000,000  quarters.  And  what  is  most  extraordinary  of  all,  the  returns  of  the 
income  tax,  when  laid  on  even  in  the  year  1842,  a  period  of  severe  and  unpre- 
cedented commercial  depression,  proved  the  existence  in  Great  Britain  alone  of 
^200,000,000  of  annual  income  of  persons  enjoying  above  /'150  each;  of  which 
immense  sum  about  ^150,000,000  were  from  the  fruits  of  fealized  capital,  either  in 
land  or  some  other  durable  investment.  It  is  probable  that  such  an  accumulation 
of  wealth  never  existed  before  in  any  single  State,  not  even"  iu  Rome  at  the  period 
I  of  its  highest  splendor. ' 

He  further  said : 
Nor  has  the  increase  of  opulence  in  cities  been  less  remarkable  than  the  augmen- 
tation in  the  number  of  their  inhabitants.  The  daily  display  of  wealth  in  the 
metropolis  excites  the  astonishment  of  every  beholder.  It  is  not  going  too  far  to 
.say  that  it  is  double  of  what  it  was  at  the  close  of  the  war.  Manchester,  Liverpool, 
Birmingham,  Glasgow,  Leeds,  Bristol,  Dundee,  Aberdeen  and  all  the  trading  towns 
of  the  empire  have  advanced  in  a  similar  proportion,  not  merely  in  the  opulence 
of  a  few,  but  the  evident  ease  and  well-being  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
community.  It  is  impossible  to  see  the  streets  of  comfortable  houses  calculated  for 
persons  of  moderate  income,  and  the  miles  of  villas  beyond  them  for  those  more 
advanced  in  opulence,  without  becoming  sensible  that  prosperity  has  almost  ever)-- 
where  descended  far  in  society  in  the  urban  population. '' 

Even  Mr.  Mongredien,  in  speaking  of  the  year  1845,  the  year  before 
free  trade  was  adopted,  says  : 

"  In  1845  the  country  was  flourishing,  trade  was  prosperous,  and  the 
revenue  showed  a  surplus,  railways  were  being  constructed  with  an  enor- 
mous rapidity  and  the  working  classes  were  fully  and  remuneratively 
employed." 

In  1836,  Mr.  Cobden,  referring  to  the  condition  of  the  English  people 
from    the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  says  :   "  In  a  word,  at  no  period 

•  England  in  1815  atul  is.is,  Alison,  p.  6.       2  Id.,  pp.  26  and  27. 


GROWTH  OF  INDUSTRIES. 


were  the  peasantry  of  this  country  enjoying  so  great  an  amount  of  com- 
forts as  they  possess  at  this  time,  and  the  primary  cause  of  which  is  the 
twenty  years'  duration  of  peace."  ' 

Mr.  Dunckley  says: 

No  century  since  the  conquest  has  done  half  so  much  to  revolutionize  the  modes 
of  subsistence,  and  with  them  the  prevalent  habits  and  manners  of  the  people,  as 
that  which  closed  with  1S50.  During  this  period  the  population  has  multiplied  at 
a  quicker  ratio  than  any  preceding  epoch. 2 

To  Northen  Europe  our  exports  have  nearly  doubled ;  to  Southern  Europe,  they 
had  experienced  an  advance  of  almost  90  per  cent ;  our  exports  to  Africa  had  increased 
five-fold;  to  Asia  150  per  cent;  to  the  United  States  80  per  cent;  to  the  foreign 
West  Indies  more  than  100  per  cent;  to  South  America  more  than  75  per  cent;  and 
the  total  amount  to  /■58,484, 292,  being  an  advance  of  no  less  than  86  per  cent 
upon  the  value  of  our  exports  in  1826.  ■' 

Mr.  Porter  (i 851)  in  concluding  a  survey  of  the  industrial  progress 
of  the  country  from  the  beginning  of   the  nineteenth  century  to  1850, 

says : 

If  the  complaint  of  "surplus  population"  has  any  foundation,  would  it  not 
have  been  in  the  later  years  of  this  series  that  the  evils  of  such  a  condition  would 
chiefly  have  made  themselves  apparent?  And  yet,  we  may  triumphantly  point  to 
the  evidences  that  have  attended  our  researches  as  recorded  in  this  volume,  to  show 
that  the  material  progress  of  the  country  has  never  before  proceeded  with  a  speed 
equal  to  that  which  it  has  made  during  the  past  five  and  twenty  years.* 

The  reader  will  do  well  to  contrast  the  foregoing  expressions  from 
some  of  the  most  eminent  and  trustworthy  authors  of  Great  Britain,  with 
the  literature  that  has  been  circulated  by  the  members  of  the  Cobden  Club, 
to  create  an  impression  that  the  industries  of  Great  Britain  were  being- 
crippled  by  protective  tariffs.  An  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the 
facts  bearing  upon  this  question  are  misunderstood  is  afforded  by  the  fol- 
lowing passage  in  a  speech  by  Mr.  Harter,  member  of  Congress  from  Ohio, 
in  favor  of  the  Wilson  bill,  January  11,  1894  : 

Yes,  Great  Britain  had  protection  until  about  1S42,  but  what  was  the  condition 
of  England's  trade  under  it?  How  did  her  commerce  flourish?  Did  her  manu- 
facturers prosper?  These,  and  questions  like  these,  will  throw  much  needed  light 
upon  this  subject,  which  so  utterly  befogs  the  average  Republican  intellect.  I  beg, 
therefore,  to  say  to  the  House  that,  at  the  time  tariff  reform  measures  were  first  intro- 
duced in  Great  Britain,  the  chronic  condition  of  her  working  people  was  one  of 
hunger.  One  of  hunger,  I  repeat.  Her  manufactures  were  languishing.  At  the  end 
of  a  period  of  many  hundred  years  of  protection  her  trade  was  dormant. 

Mr.  Harter  could  not  have  been  familiar  with  the  expressions  of 
Archibald  Alison ,  Mr.  Porter,  or  even  with  what  Mr.  Cobden  himself  said 
in  1836.     The  effort  to  throw  discredit  on   the  policy  of  protection  by 

'  Charter  of  the  Nations,  p.  10.      3  id.,  p.  129.       <  Progress 


^X 


MODERN  ENGLAND  UNDER  PROTECTION. 

Statements  of  this  character  has  arisen  since  the  masses  of  the  English 
people  have  become  reduced  to  degradation  and  poverty,  and  the  indus- 
tries of  the  country  paralyzed  under  the  blighting  influence  of  free  trade, 
in  order  to  show  that  the  conditions  are  no  worse  than  they  were  while 
the  policy  of  protection  was  being  practiced.  Aside  from  the  distress  of 
1846  and  1847,  caused  by  the  failure  of  the  potato  crop  and  wheat  harvest 
in  1846  and  1847,  and  a  few  exceptional  years  of  commercial  panics,  it 
may  be  safely  stated  that  the  English  people  enjoyed  a  high  degree  of 
prosperity  so  long  as  protection  was  continued. 


PART   IV. 

RETURN  TO  FREE   TRADE  AND  ITS  EFFECT  ON 
HOME  INDUSTRIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Origin  of  the  Free  Trade  Movement. 

The  period  embraced  within  this  chapter,  from  1793  to  i860,  is  so 
filled  with  industrial  and  legislative  changes  that  a  whole  volume  might  be 
devoted  to  their  consideration,  with  an  exercise  of  a  fair  degree  of 
brevity. 

The  industrial  changes  which  began  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century  were  continued  by  discoveries  and  inventions,  until,  by  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  nearly  all  branches  of  trade  and  commerce  were 
revolutionized.  During  this  period  steam  engines  were  substituted  for 
water  wheels  in  nearly  every  branch  of  manufacture  requiring  the  use  of 
motive  power,  while  railroads  and  steam  navigation  revolutionized  the 
means  of  transportation  and  communication.  The  increase  of  knowledge, 
the  discoveries  in  chemistry  and  other  departments  of  science,  placed  the 
arts  of  manufacture  upon  an  entirely  new  basis,  and  brought  into  requisition 
a  different  order  of  talent  and  skill.  By  1846  machine  work  had  largely 
displaced  the  old  system  of  hand  labor.  The  old  masters  who  had  carried 
on  small  factories  with  a  few  journeymen  and  apprentices,  were  compelled 
to  give  way  to  companies  and  corporations,  with  large  capital  and  plants 
fitted  up  with  all  modern  improvements.  The  factory  system  was  brought 
into  existence  by  those  inventions  of  textile  machinery  which  increased 
the  expense  of  setting  up  plants  and  carrying  on  this  department  of  manu- 
facturing. As  machinery  became  more  perfected,  and  its  use  extended 
to  different  branches  of  industry,  the  system  of  capitalistic  production 
increased,  until  finally  a  complete  transformation  was  effected  and  the  lord 
of  ten  thousand  spindles  became  more  powerful  in  the  realm,  than  the 
lord  of  ten  thousand  acres. 

By  the  use  of  machinery  a  person  could,  in  a  very  short  time,  not 

only  learn  to  perform  the  same  work  which  hitherto  had  required  years  of 

training,  but  could  accomplish  so  much  more  in  the  same  length  of  time, 

that  thousands  of  old  artisans  were  thrown  out  of  employment.     Their 

(127) 


Inttoduc- 
machinery. 


Industrial 
effects  of 
machinery. 


EETVRN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Itiiportant 
character- 
istics of  the 
period 
from  ins 


displacement  caused  much  suffering  and  distress.  Unable  easily  to  find 
employment,  and  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  changed  conditions,  they 
organized  into  bodies  and  went  about  assaulting  factories  and  demolishing 
machiner}-.  The  general  benefits  and  advantages  of  the  new  inventions, 
to  the  whole  people,  so  outweighed  the  temporary  and  individual  losses 
which  occurred,  that  nothing  could  stop  or  check  the  full  play  of  inventive 
genius,  and  the  progressive  development  of  man's  powers  over  the  forces 
of  nature  went  steadily  on.  The  increased  productive  capacity  of  labor 
became  so  great  that  it  was  difficult  to  find  new  markets  for  the  surplus 
products.  While  the  wages  of  hand  workmen  were  constantly  reduced  in 
attempting  to  keep  up  the  struggle  against  machinery,  until  the  fight 
was  finally  given  up,  the  earnings  of  those  artisans  who  learned  to 
attend  machines,  and  became  fitted  for  the  new  system,  were  greatly 
increased. 

There  is  no  similar  period  in  the  history  of  any  country  in  which  so 
many  influences  favorable  to  business  activity  were  constantly  arising, 
while  at  the  same  time  external  forces  were  operating  to  bring  about  busi- 
ness depressions,  and  hinder  an  unlimited  expansion  of  the  commerce  of 
its  inhabitants.  While  they  were  perfecting  their  machinerJ^  increasing 
their  factories,  accumulating  wealth,  educating  and  fitting  their  artisans 
in  the  use  of  machinery,  and  becoming  able  to  do  the  manufacturing  for 
the  entire  world,  the  United  States  and  all  Continental  countries  were 
building  up  rival  industries  under  a  system  of  protective  tariffs  and  closing 
their  markets  to  the  admission  of  English  goods.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
important  conditions  which  was  then  affecting  the  unlimited  expansion  of 
British  industries.  Instead  of  their  markets  being  constantly  extended, 
as  their  ability  to  supply  them  increased,  they  were  being  restricted. 

The  conditions  which  affected  the  price  of  wheat  during  certain  5-ears 
should  also  be  considered.  There  was  a  very  deficient  harvest  in  1839, 
and  three  successive  poor  harvests  occurred  in  1845,  1846  and  1847.  '^^^^ 
year  1847  is  particularly  noted  for  the  failure  of  the  potato  crop  in  Ireland, 
which  caused  one  of  the  most  severe  famines  with  which  the  people  of  any 
country  were  ever  afflicted. 

It  was  during  the  failure  of  the  wheat  crop  and  the  famine  in  Ireland, 
when  the  people  of  both  countries  were  not  only  sufiering  from  a  lack  of 
sufficient  food,  but  also  from  high  prices  occasioned  thereby,  that  the  duties 
on  agricultural  products  were  repealed,  and  the  English  people  changed 
their  commercial  policy  and  adopted  free  trade.  During  this  period  also, 
between  1840  and  1850,  a  S3^stem  of  railroad  building  was  entered  upon  in 
England  and  throughout  the  world,  and  the  .sub.stitution  of  steam  for  .sail- 
ing vessels,  in  passenger  and  freight  traffic,  was  begun,  followed 
immediately  by  the  discover>'  of  gold  in  California  in  1849,  and  in  Australia 
in  1851,  which  gave  to  the  business  of  the  world  au  impetus,  the  impor- 
tance of  which  can  scarcely  be  overestimated. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  3IOVE3IENT. 


The  first  part  of  this  period,  from  1815  to  1840,  was  one  of  retrench- 
ment and  recovery  from  some  of  the  most  violent  causes  which  ever 
revolutionized  and  disorganized  the  business  of  any  people  in  any 
time.  The  latter  part,  from  1840  to  i860,  is  characterized  by  the  new 
causes  which  gave,  not  only  to  England  but  to  the  people  of  every  civil- 
ized country,  increased  facilities  in  manufacturing,  trade  and  commerce. 
From  this  time  the  people  of  England  were  doing  business  under  a  stable 
financial  policy.  The  increased  supply  of  the  precious  metals,  the  revival 
of  trade  and  commerce,  caused  by  railroad  building  and  the  construction 
of  steamships,  created  such  business  activity,  that  a  sufficient  demand  for 
commodities  arose  to  enhance  prices  somewhat.  The  reader  will  readily 
appreciate  the  fact  that  nearly  all  of  these  causes,  which  either  injured  or 
benefited  the  commercial  interests  of  the  English  people,  existed  wholly 
apart  from  either  protection  or  free  trade. 

This  period  becomes  of  direct  importance,  because  England  entirely 
abandoned  the  policy  of  protection,  threw  her  ports  open,  and  invited  the 
free  admission  of  the  products  of  other  countries,  in  competition  with  the 
products  of  her  farms,  factories  and  mines,  thus  adopting  the  policy  of 
free  trade.  Since  that  time,  her  statesmen,  economic  writers  and  manu- 
facturers, have  persistently  been  urging  and  advising  other  nations  to 
pursue  the  same  course.  In  the  arguments  used  to  sustain  the  position 
taken  by  England,  it  has  been  constantly  paraded  before  the  world,  and 
vigorously  and  boldly  asserted,  that  all  of  the  disasters  which  befell  the 
English  people,  prior  to  1846,  were  the  result  of  the  system  of  protection, 
while  all  of  the  progress  since  1846  was  mainly  due  to  the  adoption  of 
free  trade.  The  high  price  of  wheat,  caused  by  the  failure  of  crops,  is 
loudly  proclaimed  as  the  result  of  protection,  while  the  free  trade  writers 
are  absolutely  silent  about  the  moderate  prices  which  prevailed  when  crops 
were  good. 

The  want  and  suffering,  occasioned  by  the  famine  of  1846  and  1847 
are  pictured  with  all  the  horrors  which  can  be  depicted  by  the  eloquence 
and  graphic  pens  of  English  free  traders ;  yet  the  plenty  and  prosperity 
of  other  times  are  ignored.  The  low  wages  of  the  hand-loom  weavers  are 
held  up  as  the  effect  of  protection,  while  nothing  is  said  about  the  high 
wages  paid  to  machine  workers.  One  would  think  to  read  the  free  trade 
literature  put  out  by  the  Cobden  Club  since  1867,  with  which  this  and 
other  countries  have  been  flooded,  that  the  most  appalling  conditions 
existed  in  England  up  to  the  time  free  trade  was  proclaimed.  Fortunately, 
however,  we  are  not  compelled  to  rely  upon  the  literature  of  the  Cobden 
Club  for  the  facts  bearing  upon  this  question. 

This  period  of  the  commercial  history  of  the  country  has  been  the 
subject  of  much  controversy,  which  is  of  but  little  importance  in  consider- 
ing the  merits  of  protection  or  free  trade,  yet  it  has  given  rise  to  so  much 
misunderstanding,  that  the  economic  conditions  which  prevailed  at  this 
9 


EETURN  TO  FEES  TRADE. 


time  should  be  presented,  in  order  to  refute  the  many  misrepresentations 
made,  and  allow  the  reader  to  arrive  at  the  underlying  facts. 

The  Napoleonic  wars  which,  from  1793  to  1815,  involved  all  Europe 
the  most  destructive  and  devastating  struggle  of  modern  times,  afforded 
opportunity  for  Great  Britain  to  drive  every  Continental  rival  from  the 
sea,  gain  the  absolute  control  of  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  world,  and 
make  her  commercial  supremacy  complete.  Since  the  time  of  Cromwell 
her  foreign  policy  had  for  its  chief  end  her  commercial  pre-eminence.  The 
great  central  purpose  of  this  nation  was  at  first  to  acquire  foreign  posses- 
sion and  to  participate  in  the  carrying  trade.  This  soon,  however, 
developed  into  a  definite  plan  of  preventing,  by  every  means  within  her 
power,  other  people  from  becoming  and  remaining  competitors  in  manu- 
facturing and  commerce.  Her  Navigation  Laws  were  enacted  for  the 
purpose  of  transferring  to  her  own  merchants  and  shippers  the  trade  then 
enjoyed  by  the  Dutch.  At  all  times  ready  to  engage  in  foreign  wars  to 
forward  this  end,  in  numerous  instances,  she  deliberately  provoked  con- 
troversies for  the  purpose  of  annihilating  rivals.  To  destroy  the  shipping, 
foreign  trade  and  business  connections  of  all  Continental  powers  and  to 
strip  them  of  their  possessions,  formed  the  chief  interest  of  the  English 
people  in  the  wars  with  Napoleon.  The  wealth,  productive  forces  and 
powerful  navy  which  they  already  possessed,  together  with  their  insular 
position,  enabled  them  to  defend  what  they  then  held,  while  hostilities 
involving  so  many  rivals  afforded  an  opportunity  to  bring  about  the  ruin 
of  their  competitors. 

Although  the  victories  of  Nelson  and  Wellington  were  purchased  at  a 
great  sacrifice  of  human  life  and  treasure,  and  the  English  people  were 
burdened  with  an  enormous  debt,  which  to  this  day  is  unpaid,  the  com- 
mercial advantages  secured  cannot  be  overestimated.  It  was  half  a 
century  before  the  Continent  recovered  from  the  bankrupt  and  crippled  con- 
dition to  which  it  was  reduced.  During  all  this  time  English  manufacturers 
were  acquiring  wealth  and  amassing  fortunes  from  the  trade  which  they 
enjoyed.  The  possessions  acquired  at  this  time  have  continued  a  source 
of  revenue,  profit  and  strength  to  the  realm.  The  destruction  of  the  ship- 
ping of  Continental  countries  gave  to  England  such  an  absolute  monopoly 
of  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world,  that  no  rivals  have  since  arisen  capable 
of  taking  it  from  her.  The  absolute  supremacy  established  at  this  time  is 
one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  steady  and  unparalleled  growth  of  commerce, 
which  during  the  nineteenth  century  is  perhaps  the  most  important  phase 
of  the  industrial  life  of  the  country.  That  this  pre-eminence  and  commer- 
cial greatness  were  not  attained  by  that  let-alone  policy  of  free  trade  is 
shown  by  Mr.  Cobden,  who  said  : 

During  the  latter  half  of  the  French  revolutionary  wars,  England,  owing  to  succes- 
sive victories,  became  the  mistress  of  the  ocean.  Her  flag  floated  triumphantly  over 
every  navigable  parallel  of  latitude,  and  her  merchants  and  manufacturers  conuiuuuk-d 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  3I0VEMENT. 


a  monopoly  of  the  markets  of  the  globe.  For  a  period  of  more  than  ten  years  an 
enemy's  ship  was  scarcely  to  be  seen,  unless  a  fugitive  from  the  thunders  of  our  ves- 
sels of  war.  No  neutrals  were  allowed  to  pass  along  that  thoroughfare  of  nations,  the 
ocean,  without  submitting  to  pay  homage  to  British  power  of  undergoing  the  humilia- 
tion of  a  search  by  our  cruisers." 

Thorold  Rogers,  one  of  the  most  eminent  English  writers  of  recent 
years,  speaking  of  the  position  held  by  England  at  the  close  of  these  wars, 
says: 

The  exhaustion  of  Europe  after  the  peace  of  1S15  left  the  British  people  as 
completely  the  masters  of  a  sole  market  as  if  they  ^lad  conquered  it  themselves. 
The  Continental  war  had  absolutely  arrested  all  Continental  progress.  All  the  while 
England  was  making  fresh  way  in  the  newer  sciences,  such  as  chemistry  was,  and 
her  rivals  were  of  the  future. ' 

Secure  fi-om  foreign  invasion  England  was  enjoying  that  internal 
tranquillity  which  is  so  favorable  to  commercial  interests.  Her  factories 
and  artisans  were  busy  in  supplying  her  merchants  and  shippers  with  pro- 
duce for  all  markets.  Holding  a  complete  monopoly  of  the  carrying 
trade,  the  greatest  manufacturing  country  in  Christendom,  she  was  ready 
to  profit  by  the  misfortunes  of  other  nations  and  enjoy  a  period  of  pros- 
perity, such  as,  perhaps  up  to  that  time,  had  never  been  known.  Of  this 
period  Alison  says  : 

Prosperity  unrivaled  and  unheard  of  pervaded  every  department  of  the  empire 
Our  colonial  possessions  encircled  the  earth,  the  whole  West  Indian  Islands  had 
fallen  into  our  hands.  An  empire  of  60,000,000  men  in  Hindoostan  acknowledged 
our  rule.  Java  was  added  to  our  Eastern  possessions,  and  the  flag  of  France 
disappeared  from  every  station  beyond  the  sea.  Agriculture,  commerce  and  mi 
factures  at  home  had  increased  in  unparalleled  ratio. 

This  most  unusual  prosperity  in  the  very  nature  of  things  could  not 
last.  When  some  of  the  principal  influences  which  were  especially  stimu- 
lating business  activity  were  withdrawn,  a  business  crisis  followed  as  a 
natural  result  of  changed  conditions.  The  government  had  been  expend- 
ing over  seven  hundred  million  dollars  yearly,  in  paying  the  expenses  of 
a  war.  This  must  now  cease.  Over  three  billion  dollars  had  changed 
hands  and  been  put  in  circulation  by  the  government  and  this  sum  was 
represented  by  the  debt  alone.  Over  three  hundred  thousand  soldiers 
were  disbanded  and  sought  employment  in  industrial  pursuits.  The  over- 
speculation  which  followed  the  close  of  the  war,  by  flooding  Continental 
markets  with  vast  quantities  of  goods  for  which  they  were  too  poor  to  pay, 
ruined  many  manufacturers  and  merchants.  "  Yet  the  years  from  181 5 
to  1 8 19,"  says  Mr.  Ali.son,  "  though  checkered  with  suffering  from  these 
causes,  and  from  two  bad  harvests  in  18 16  and  1818,  were  upon  the  whole 
prosperous."  The  conditions  which  prevailed  at  this  time  are  so  similar 
to  those  following  the  great  rebellion  in  the  United  States,  that  the  reader 

1  Political  Writings,  p.  229.        =  Industrial  and  Commercial  History,  p.  20, 


liETUJil^'  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


will  readily  appreciate  the  causes  which  brought  about  the  crisis  in  ques- 
tion. In  1797  the  English  Government  suspended  specie  paj'ment,  and 
during  the  twenty  years  which  followed,  a  large  volume  of  paper  money 
was  placed  in  circulation,  not  only  by  the  Bank  of  England,  but  by 
numerous  country  banks.  Gold  went  to  a  premium  and  a  period  of 
speculation  and  inflation  followed  which  in  its  duration  and  magnitude  is 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  world.  With  a  comparatively  small 
amount  of  the  precious  metal  on  hand,  a  single  gold  standard  was  adopted 
and  specie  payments  were  resumed  in  18 19.  This  not  only  caused  a 
sudden  and  great  contraction  in  the  volume  of  currency,  but  it  reduced 
everything  from  inflated  and  fictitious  valuations  to  a  gold  basis.  Instead 
of  slowly  and  gradually  reaching  a  point  at  a  future  period  for  resumption 
of  specie  payment,  as  was  the  case  in  the  United  States  following  the  great 
Civil  War,  the  step  was  taken  at  once  and  in  the  midst  of  extravagance, 
speculation  and  high  prices.  While  the  conditions  then  existing  were 
absolutely  certain  to  result  in  a  business  crisis,  and  the  immediate  effect 
of  the  action  on  the  part  of  the  government  was  to  plunge  the  business  of 
the  country  into  liquidation  and  place  it  on  an  entirely  different  basis  of 
value,  the  ultimate  efiect  was  to  restore  stability  and  confidence.  The 
financial  failures  and  business  calamities  which  followed  the  Napoleonic 
wars,  were  the  natural  result  of  over-trading  and  speculation  which  had 
been  going  on  for  a  long  time.  Free  traders  point  to  the  condition  of 
business  between  1813  and  1819  as  an  example  of  the  injurious  effects 
of  a  protective  tarifi".  Before  giving  credit  to  the  "misrepresentations 
of  free  trade  writers  on  this  point,  the  student  of  tariff  history  should 
understand  the  causes  which  at  that  time  were  operating  to  bring  dis- 
tress upon  the  laboring  classes  and  disasters  to  manufacturers  and  busi- 
ness men. 

Dr.  Hanna,  Mr.  Chalmer's  biographer,  in  speaking  of  the  causes  of 
the  panic  of  181 7,  says  : 

Our  exports  in  1S14  were  double  those  of  the  preceding  year,  and  although  the 
increase  was  not  relatively  so  great  the  exports  in  1815  exceeded  in  vahie  those  of 
1814,  by  about  seven  millions  of  pounds  sterling.  This  alluring  prospect  led  the 
British  merchant  astray.  He  forgot  that  the  resources  of  the  Continent  were  neces- 
sarily limited  and  had  been  drained  hy  war.  The  over-trading  into  which  he  had 
plunged  bore  its  accustomed  fruits.  The  Continental  markets  were  glutted.  Engli.sh 
goods  were  selling  in  them  lower  than  in  this  countrj'.  Heavy  losses  and  frequent 
bankruptcies  ensued.  The  pressure  fell  at  last,  and  most  heavily  upon  the  laboring 
classes.  Multitudes  were  thrown  out  of  employment  at  the  very  time  that  the  reduc- 
tion of  our  military  establishment  had  thrown  a  large  number  of  additional  hands 
into  the  labor  market.  To  aggravate  the  evil,  the  price  of  bread  began  to  rise.  The 
autumn  months  of  1815  and  the  -spring  months  of  1S16  were  most  uncongenial.  The 
crop  of  1816  turned  out  one  of  the  wonst  that  had  been  for  many  years.  In  the 
course  of  twelve  months  wheat  rose  to  double  its  former  value,  and  in  1817  and  iSiS 
the  war  and  famine  prices  were  once  more  reached,  etc.  ' 
1  Kair  Trade  Joiirual,  Vol.  I.,  p.  no. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  3I0VEMENT. 


It  has  not  been  until  since  the  adoption  of  free  trade  in  1846  that 
English  writers  have  attempted  to  attribute  this  business  crisis  and  the 
misfortunes  which  attended  it  to  the  general  policy  of  protection.  There 
were,  however,  complaints  against  the  duties  on  wheat,  at  the  time  when 
crops  had  failed  and  prices  were  high.  But  the  prosperous  period  which 
followed  and  the  moderate  prices  of  farm  produce  prevented  agitation 
against  the  Corn  Laws  until  1839  and  1846,  when  the  failure  of  the  wheat 
crop  again  increased  the  prices. 

It  is  unreasonable  to  assume  that  the  manufacturers  of  Great  Britain 
became  the  champions  of  a  commercial  policy,  which  they  at  that  time 
had  any  reasonable  grounds  for  believing  would  close  their  factories  and 
be  detrimental  to  their  interests.  Recent  free  trade  writers,  especially 
those  connected  with  the  Cobden  Club,  have  attempted  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  free  trade  movement  in  England  had  its  origin  with  a  band  of 
wise  men,  whom  they  delight  in  calling  "thinkers,"  "economists," 
'  •  seekers  after  the  truth, "and  by  many  other  well-known  terms  which  give 
an  impression  that  the  movement  was  the  result  of  deliberation  and 
research  on  the  part  of  learned  men,  who  had  discovered  great  scientific 
truths.  The  facts  of  English  history  show  that  this  was  not  the  case. 
The  English  people  have  always  been  noted  for  their  practical  common 
sense,  and  their  ability  to  look  out  for  their  own  interests,  regardless  of 
the  welfare  of  the  people  of  other  countries.  It  is  certainly  a  violent 
assumption  to  contend  that  a  nation  which  for  centuries  had  been  so 
solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  its  own  people,  could  at  once  be  transformed 
into  political  philanthropists,  and  become  so  filled  with  a  love  for 
humanity  in  general,  that  they  would  sacrifice  their  own  interests  for  the 
sake  of  others.  The  reason  which  controlled  their  actions  must  be  looked 
for  in  some  other  direction  than  the  one  suggested. 

What,  then",  were  the  conditions  and  causes  which  induced  the  Eng- 
lish people  to  abandon  that  system  of  protection  which  they  had 
practiced  for  nearly  four  centuries,  and  adopt  the  policy  of  free  trade? 
It  is  by  an  answer  to  this  question  that  the  people  of  other  coun- 
tries can  form  a  correct  estimate  of  the  merits  of  free  trade,  and  judge 
of  the  effect  of  the  application  of  its  principles  to  their  conditions.  An 
examination  of  their  aims  and  purposes  shows  that  in  the  adoption  of 
free  trade  they  did  not  abandon  the  great  central  purpose  which  had  been 
dominant  among  them  for  centuries.  The  policy  of  protection  had  been 
practiced  for  the^  purpose  of  building  up  the  industries  of  England  and 
making  her  the  greatest  manufacturing  centre  in  the  world.  This  had 
been  accompHshed.  Her  Navigation  Laws  were  enacted  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  her  shippers  a  monopoly  of  the  carrying  trade.  Foreign 
wars  had  been  engaged  in  for  the  purpose  of  extending  her  domains, 
destroying  rivals  and  securing  foreign  markets.  She  had,  at  the  close  of 
the  Napoleonic  wars,  attained  absolute  supremacy  as  a  commercial  nation. 


BETrnX  TO  FliEE  TRADE. 


Her  people  had  now  reached  so  high  a  degree  of  proficiency  in  manufac- 
turing, through  their  skill,  capital  and  inventions,  that  they  were  enabled 
ta  manufacture  much  cheaper  than  any  other  country  and,  therefore, 
at  that  time  needed  no  protection.  The  whole  scheme  was  entered  upon 
for  the  purpose  of  inducing  other  countries  to  abandon  protective  tariffs, 
and  open  their  markets  to  the  free  admission  of  British  wares.  Free  trade, 
then,  was  only  a  part  of  the  policy  which  they  had  pursued  for  preventing 
other  uations  from  becoming  and  remaining  industrial  rivals.  Every 
means  had  been  employed  to  prevent  them  from  setting  up  manufac- 
tures. By  the  adoption  of  free  trade  in  the  United  States,  England  would 
secure  by  peaceful  means  what  she  had  failed  to  accomplish  by  violence. 
After  the  American  colonists  had  gained  their  independence,  they 
immediately  turned  their  attention  to  the  development  of  domestic 
resources.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  Congress  provided  for  a  system  of  pro- 
tective tariffs,  for  the  express  purpose  of  encouraging  the  working  of 
mines,  the  building  of  factories,  and  the  opening  of  avenues  for  the 
employment  of  labor  and  the  investment  of  capital.  The  efforts  on  the 
part  of  English  manufacturers  to  prevent  the  building  of  factories  in  the 
New  World  were  continued  even  after  the  people  had  thrown -ofi^  the 
British  yoke.  The  plan  adopted  was  suddenly  to  inundate  the  United 
States  with  a  vast  quantitj'  of  goods  and  sell  them  so  cheaply  that  the 
American  manufacturer,  with  his  small  capital,  would  be  at  once  ruined 
and  thereby  discouraged  from  continuing  a  struggle  against  the  vast 
accumulation  of  wealth  at  the  command  of  English  hianufacturers.  The 
whole  plan  is  set  forth  in  the  ' '  Address  of  the  American  Society  for  the 
Encouragement  of  Domestic  Manufactures,"  published  in  1817,  which 
contains  the  following  statement  : 

In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1792,  when  the  report  of  General  Hamilton,  then 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  made  by  order  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  was 
published  in  England,  it  created  such  alarm  that  meetings  were  called  in  the  manu- 
facturing towns,  and  Manchester  alone,  at  a  single  meeting,  subscribed  50,000 
pounds  sterling  toward  a  fund  to  be  vested  in  English  goods,  and  shipped  to  this 
country  for  the  purpose  of  glutting  our  market  and  blasting  the  hopes  of  our  manu- 
facturers in  Ihe  bud. 

The  American  market,  from  this  time  until  the  breaking  out  of  the 
war  of  1812,  was  raided  by  this  system  of  commeri-ial  warfare.  During 
the  war  of  18 12  the  Embargo  Act  and  the  susiicnsiini  of  commercial 
intercourse  between  the  two  countries  gave  our  artisans  and  manufac- 
turers a  brief  period  of  absolute  protection  from  the  assaults  of  their 
commercial  enemies.  People  hesitated  to  invest  money  in  factories  and 
business  enterprises  which  were  being  constantly  .subjected  to  ruinous 
competition,  but  as  soon  as  their  own  market  was  made  secure  they  at 
once  engaged  in  the  building  of  factories  and  the  employment  of  labor, 
which  produced  the  most  flouri.shing   indu.strial  condition  that  the  people 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 

of  the  New  World  had  yet  experienced.  The  example  thus  afforded 
strengthened  Jefferson,  Madison  and  others  in  their  belief  in  the  advan- 
tages of  protection. 

Upon  signing  the  treaty  of  peace  in  1815,  commercial  hostilities  were 
renewed  against  the  industries  which  had  risen  in  the  meantime.  Lord 
Brougham,  referring  in  1816  to  the  flooding  of  American  markets  with  the 
produce  of  British  factories,  upon  the  opening  of  our  ports  at  the  close  of 
the  war,  said  : 

It  is  well  worth  while  to  incur  loss  upon  the  first  exportation,  in  order,  by  the 
glut,  to  stifle  in  the  cradle  those  rising  manufactures  in  the  United  States,  which 
the  war  had  forced  into  existence,  contrary  to  the  natural  course  of  things.  Eigh- 
teen millions  worth  of  goods,  I  believe,  were  exported  to  North  America  in  one 
year,  and  for  a  considerable  part  of  this  no  returns  have  been  received ;  while  still 
more  of  it  must  have  been  selling  at  a  very  scanty  profit. 

This  statement  is  corroborated  by  Mr.  Porter,  who,  in  speaking  of  the 
vast  exports  of  woolen  goods  from  Great  Britain  in  18 15,  says  : 

The  largest  export  in  point  of  value  that  ever  took  place  occurred  in  the  year 
1815,  when  owing  to  the  interruption  of  intercourse  with  the  United  Statesof  America 
in  the  two  preceding  years,  the  quantity  sent  to  that  country  Was  unusually  great. 
The  number  of  pieces  exported  to  all  parts  in  that  year  was  1,482,643,  the  number  of 
}-ards  12,173,515,  and  the  total  value  9,381,426  pounds  sterling  ($46, 907, 130),  of  which 
4,378,195  pounds  sterling  ($21,890,975)  was  sent  to  the  United  States.' 

At  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  in  18 15,  the  manufacturers  of 
England,  through  the  use  of  machinery,  had  become  so  far  superior  to 
tho.se  of  Germanj-  and  other  Continental  countries,  that  no  tariff  bar- 
riers which  then  existed  were  sufficient  to  keep  out  their  wares,  hence  the 
markets  of  the  Continent  were  thrown  open.  Germany,  Prussia,  Belgium, 
Holland,  and  in  fact  the  entire  Continent,  were  made  the  dumping  ground 
for  the  products  of  English  factories.  There  was  a  persistent  and  deliberate 
purpose  to  destroy  the  industries  of  other  nations.  The  invasion  of  the 
Continent  tended  to  destroy  and  hinder  the  principal  means  by  which  the 
prosperity  of  the  people  might  be  restored.  All  of  the  European  nations 
found  themselves  at  the  close  of  the  long  .struggle  from  which  they  had 
emerged,  burdened  with  debt,  impoveri.shed  and  demoralized.  Their  only 
hope  of  recuperation  and  restoration  of  prosperity  lay  in  the  cultivation  of 
the  industrial  arts.  Disturbed  for  years  by  the  calamities  of  war,  they  were 
anxious  for  peace,  repose  and  internal  tranquillity,  but  a  foe  was  at  their 
doors.  The  invading  armies  of  Napoleon  that  had  laid  exactions  trpon 
their  cities,  inflicted  injuries  from  which  they  could  recover  ;  but  the 
tribute  demanded  by  English  manufacturers  must  not  only  constantly  be 
drawn  from  their  accumulations  and  industrial  life,  but  was  more  destruc- 
tive to  the  welfare  of  the  people  than  the  open  military  conflict  which  had 
just  closed.     It  would  not  only  sap  the  industrial  vigor  of  the  people,  but 

•  Progress  of  the  Nation,  p.  169. 


IlETCKX  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


spirit  of 
Great 
Britain's 
commercial 


by  an  unceasing  and  persistent  system  of  underselling,  carried  on  under 
the  guise  of  friendship  and  the  banner  of  peace,  would  doom  their  artisans 
to  a  life  of  idleness  and  degradation,  and  deprive  their  business  men  of  the 
opportunity  of  carrying  on  legitimate  business  enterprises  in  their  own 
country-. 

The  commercial  warfare  which  was  being  waged  by  English  manu- 
facturers against  the  rising  industries  on  the  Continent  and  in  the  United 
States,  the  losses  sustained  and  the  gravity  of  the  situation  thus  presented, 
caused  a  discussion  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  which  Mr.  Henry 
Brougham  (later  l,ord  Brougham)  participated.  In  a  speech  made  by 
him  on  April  9,  1816,  he  said  : 

The  diflttculties  of  1812  are  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  the  committee,  and  are 
still  working  their  effects  in  many  parts  of  the  countrj',  although  the  repeal  of  the 
Orders  in  Council,  by  enabling  us  to  export  goods  which  were  all  paid  for  to  the 
amount  of  seven  or  eight  millions,  afforded  a  most  seasonable  and  important  relief, 
and  enabled  capitalists  to  lower  their  stock  on  hand  in  a  great  proportion.  That 
stock,  however,  began  to  increase  during  the  unhappy  continuance  of  the  American 
war;  and  the  peace,  unexpectedly  made,  in  Europe,  followed  by  the  treaty  with 
America,  soon  produced  an  effect  to  which  I  must  request  the  serious  attention  of 
the  committee,  because  I  believe  its  nature  and  extent  are  by  no  means  well  under- 
stood. After  the  cramped  state  in  which  the  enemy's  measures  and  our  own  rela- 
tion (as  we  termed  it),  had  kept  our  trade  for  some  years,  when  the  events  of  the 
spring  of  1814  suddenly  opened  on  the  Continent,  a  rage  for  exporting  goods  of 
every  kind  burst  forth,  only  to  be  explained  by  reflecting  on  the  previous  restric- 
tions we  had  been  laboring  under,  and  only  to  be  equaled  (though  not  in  extent), 
by  some  of  the  mercantile  delusions  connected  with  South  American  speculations. 

The  peace  with  America  has  produced  somewhat  of  a  similar  effect,  although  I 
am  very  far  from  placing  the  vast  exports  which  it  occasioned  upon  the  same  footing 
with  those  to  the  European  market  the  year  before,  both  because  ultimately  the 
Americans  will  pay,  which  the  exhausted  state  of  the  Continent  renders  very 
unlikely,  and  because  it  was  well  worth  while  to  incur  a  loss  upon  the  first  expor- 
tation, in  order,  by  the  glut,  to  stifle  in  the  cradle,  those  rising  manufactures  in  the 
United  States  which  the  war  has  forced  into  existence,  contrary  to  the  natural 
course  of  things.  > 

Upon  this  same  subject,  Henry  C.  Carey,  quoting  from  Frederick  List, 
the  German  economist,  says  : 

"The  Continental  system  of  Napoleon,  however,  constitutes  the  great  era  in  the 
history  of  German  as  well  as  of  French  indu.stry ;  for  under  it  commenced  the  for- 
ward progress  of  every  kind  of  manufacture,  with  corresponding  increase  in  tlie 
attention  to  the  breeding  of  sheep,  the  production  of  wool,  and  the  development  of 
domestic  commerce.  On  the  return  of  peace,  however,"  continues  Mr.  List,  "the 
Engli.sli,  who  had  greatly  improved  their  machinery,  renewed  tlieir  rivalry  ;  and 
general  ruin  and  distress  ensued,  especially  in  the  country  of  the  lower  Rhine,  which 
after  being  for  some  years  attached  to  France,  now  lost  her  markets.  At  length,  in 
1818,  the  cry  of  distress  could  no  longer  be  unheeded,  and  now  a  Prussian  tariff  gave 
the  protection  needed  against  that  inundation  of  English  goods,  by  means  of  which 
Great  Britain  sought  to  stifle  in  the  cradle  the  industry  of  other  nations.  Very 
^  Brougham's  Speeches,  I^dinburgh,  iS3vS,  Vol.  i,  pp.  518-19. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 

moderate  in  its  duties,  this  tariiF  had  the  merit  of  being  specific  and  not  ad  valorem, 
thus  not  only  preventing  fraud  and  smuggling,  but  also  encouraging  the  production 
of  those  articles  of  coarse  manufacture,  the  quantity  and  bulk  of  which  gives  them 
their  great  importance. "  ' 

The  only  means  which  these  nations  could  adopt  to  prevent  the  com- 
plete annihilation  of  their  industries,  through  English  competition,  were 
those  taken  by  Germany.  Protective  tariffs  were  made  absolutely  necessarj' 
to  the  industrial  life  of  the  United  States  and  all  Continental  cotmtries.  In 
the  production  of  all  textile  fabrics  to  which  the  use  of  labor-saving 
machinery  had  been  applied,  England  at  this  time  held  an  absolute  pre- 
eminence. Besides  in  those  wares  which  were  still  made  in  part  by  hand, 
the  superior  capital  of  English  manufacturers  enabled  them,  by  a  system 
of  underselling,  to  prevent  their  healthy  and  vigorous  growth  in  the 
United  States  and  some  parts  of  Europe.  The  natural  and  inevitable 
result  was  the  adoption  of  protective  tariffs  by  all  commercial  countries. 
The  United  States  adopted  the  tariff  law  of  1816,  which  is  known  as  the 
Calhoun  tariff,  it  having  been  favored  by  John  C.  Calhoun  and  ether 
Southern  members.  Again  in  1824,  1828  and  1842,  tariff  laws  were 
passed  by  Congress,  increasing  the  duties  on  imports  to  such  an  extent  that 
England's  trade  with  the  United  States  was  greatly  injured,  although  the 
policy  was  somewhat  modified  by  the  compromise  measure  of  1833,  and 
lower  duties  prevailed  up  to  1842,  when  the  more  vigorous  protective 
policy  was  restored.  Notwithstanding  the  modifications  of  1833,  from 
1842  to  1846  the  system  of  protection  was  the  policy  of  this  country.  The 
rising  industries  of  the  United  States,  under  the  fostering  care  of  such  leg- 
islation, stood  as  a  constant  menace  to  the  English  manufacturers.  Popu- 
lation was  steadily  increasing,  the  markets  becoming  larger  and  more 
valuable. 

In  1 81 8  Prussia  increased  her  duties  on  imports.  At  this  time  a 
movement  was  set  on  foot  to  unite  all  the  German  states  together,  for 
mutual  protection.  The  Zollverein,  or  German  customs  union,  was  per- 
fected by  1833,  and  the  vast  territory  which  now  forms  the  German 
Empire  was  welded  together  with  custom  houses  on  the  frontier  to  guard 
their  industries.  This  was  a  severe  blow  aimed  at  English  manufacturers, 
who  saw  here  an  industrious  and  enterprising  people,  with  vast  resources, 
and  having  every  facility  for  engaging  in  manufacturing,  close  their  mar- 
kets to  English  goods. 

Russia,  suffering  from  the  same  injuries  inflicted  on  her  indtistries  by 
English  competition,  was  compelled  in  1822,  to  return  to  the  policy  of 
protection,  which  under  the  advice  of  a  disciple  of  free  trade  had  been 
abandoned  in  18 18.  Count  Nesselrode,  the  Prime  Minister  of  Russia,  in 
recommending  the  adoption  of  protection,  stated  in  an  oSicial  communi- 
cation that  ' '  Russia  sees  herself  compelled  by  circumstances  to  adopt  an 


RETCRX  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


independent  industrial  system.  The  products  of  the  empire  find  no  access 
to  foreign  markets  ;  domestic  manufactures  are  either  ruined  or  on  the 
point  of  ruin  ;  all  the  moneys  of  the  empire  flow  abroad  ;  and  the  most 
solid  business  houses  are  on  the  brink  of  failure. ' '  From  this  time  on 
vigorous  measures  were  taken  b}'  the  Russian  Government  to  develop  the 
resources  of  its  vast  empire,  and  to  make  its  people  independent  of  Eng- 
land for  manufactured  articles.  The  policy  entered  upon  at  this  time, 
continued  until  1857,  when  after  a  short  and  bitter  experience  with  low 
duties,  more  vigorous  protective  laws  were  enacted  than  ever  before. 

A  revolt  against  British  competition  sooner  or  later  arose  in  every 
commercial  nation.  Belgium  and  Holland  stood  out  longer  than  Germany, 
Russia  or  the  United  States.  They  waited,  however,  until  their  people 
had  been  reduced  to  a  most  distressful  condition,  when  protective  measures 
were  resorted  to,  as  the  only  means  of  reviving  their  decaying  industries. 
Belgium  established  the  protective  policy  in  1844,  and  Holland  in  1845. 
In  the  latter  year  Spain  increased  her  import  duties  and  took  steps  toward 
building  up  a  system  of  manufactures,  while  Portugal  became  a  protective 
country  in  1837,  ^^^  increased  its  duties  in  1841. 

This  was  the  condition  confronting  England  during  the  first  half  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  She  now  saw  rival  manufactures  rising  in  everj^ 
commercial  country,  shielded  from  attack  by  protective  tariff  walls.  She 
saw  the  industrial  centres  of  Europe  enter  upon  a  policy  under  which  they 
could  not  only  .supply  themselves  with  their  own  clothing  and  implements, 
but  which  ultimately  would  enable  them  to  contend  for  supremacy  in 
neutral  markets.  The  example  which  England  had  set  during  a  period 
of  three  centuries,  of  giving  encouragement  and  protection  to  her  own 
citizens  against  foreign  rivals,  was  being  vigorously  urged  in  all  countries 
in  favor  of  a  similar  policy.  England  was  thus  in  danger  of  losing  those 
foreign  markets,  while  under  a  system  of  free  trade  she  would  have  no 
difBculty  in  controlling  them. 

That  this  condition  played  a  great  part  in  influencing  the  action  of 
the  English  people  in  1846,  when  free  trade  was  adopted,  appears  from 
the  following  statement  contained  in  a  book  put  out  by  the  Anti-Corn 
League  in  1854,  giving  a  history  of  the  free  trade  movement : 

In  Saxony,  Bavaria,  Wurtemburg,  the  Rhenish  provinces  of  Prussia,  as  well  as 
Russia  and  Switzerland,  factories  had  been  erected,  filled  with  British  machinery, 
and  often  placed  under  the  oversight  of  an  experienced  workman  from  this  country-, 
and  every  exertion  made,  under  the  shelter  of  protective  imposts,  to  drive  us  from 
the  markets  of  the  Continent.  Our  skilled  artisans  were  to  be  found  in  the  United 
States,  in  Brazil,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Constantinople  and  St.  Petersburg,  ever)'- 
where  teaching  the  foreigner  to  render  himself  independent.' 

As  early  as  1820  England's  trade  in  its  relation  to  the  markets  of 
other  countries  had  assumed  an  aspect  which  alarmed  the  merchants  and 

'  Charter  of  Nations,  pp.  50,  51  and  53. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 


manufacturers  of  London.  With  constantly  increasing  capacitj-  for  pro- 
duction, they  saw  the  richest  and  most  desirable  markets  of  the  world 
being  closed  to  the  admission  of  their  goods,  and  rival  industries  rising 
that  in  time  would  prove  troublesome  competitors  in  neutral  markets. 
The  productive  powers  of  the  twenty  millions  of  people  at  this  time, 
especially  in  the  textile  industries,  had  doubled  within  the  past  twenty- 
five  years,  and  such  rapid  progress  was  being  made  that  the  limits  to 
their  future  ability  to  produce  fabrics  could  not  be  comprehended.  This 
was  a  situation  which  hitherto  had  not  been  presented  to  the  English 
people.  At  this  time  a  petition  was  presented  to  parliament  by  Mr. 
Baring,  signed  by  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of  London.'  It  was 
drafted  by  Mr.  Thomas  Tooke,  the  able  author  of  the  ' '  History  of 
Prices. ' '  This  document  is  frequently  referred  to  by  free  trade  writers  as 
e\-idence  of  the  advance  in  sound  economic  thinking  on  the  part  of  the 
English  people.  It  contains,  however,  several  statements  which  throw 
much  light  on  the  cau.ses  which  were  then  operating  to  convince  the 
English  people  that  a  change  of  policy  would  be  for  their  interest. 
The  statements  in  the  petition  upon  this  point  are  as  follows  : 
(/)  "  That  foreign  commerce  is  eminently  condiicive  to  the  wealth  and 
prosperity  of  a  country  by  enabling  it  to  import  the  commodities  for  the  pro- 
duction of  which  the  soil,  climate,  capital  and  industry  of  other  countries  are 
best  calculated,  and  to  export,  in  payment,  those  articles  for  which  its  own 
situation  is  better  adapted." 

This  declaration  that  ' '  foreign  commerce  is  eminently  conducive  to 
the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  a  countrj',"  was  of  peculiar  significance  and 
importance  to  Great  Britain.  The  reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  this 
petition  recommended  a  policy  which  was  believed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of 
England  and  suited  to  her  condition.  The  men  who  presented  it  were  at 
the  time  engaged  in  a  struggle  to  supplant  manufactures  which  were  then 
rising  in  the  United  States  and  on  the  Continent.  So  this  declaration 
should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  circumstances  and  situation  of  the 
case.  It  simply  meant  that  foreign  trade  was  of  the  highest  importance 
to  England.  No  one  has  ever  yet  disputed  this  proposition.  As  long  as 
any  country  can  exchange  its  own  domestic  productions  with  other 
countries  for  those  products,  the  like  of  which  cannot  be  raised  at  home, 
it  is  engaging  in  a  class  of  foreign  trade  which  is  necessary  and  profitable. 
A  controversy  arises  only  when  a  nation  imports  articles  which  might  be 
produced  by  its  own  labor,  thus  sacrificing  domestic  industries.  The 
petitioners  well  knew  that  the  great  manufacturing  interests  of  England 
were  beyond  the  reach  of  injurious  competition,  and  hence  it  was  not 
contemplated  that  ma?iitfacturcd  goods  should  be  brought  in  from  foreign 
parts.  The  specific  declaration  which  follows,  simply  meant  that  England 
should  import  those  products  of  other  countries  which  they  could  produce 

1  Mcculloch's  Commercial  Dictionary,  p.  384. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


more  cheaply  and  by  nature  were  especially  adapted  to  cultivate,  while 
England  should  furnish  in  return  manufactured  articles.  This  brings  us 
to  a  consideration  of  the  precise  situation  of  English  trade  and  industries 
in  their  relation  to  other  countries.  This  declaration  is  worthy  of  a  more 
extended  consideration  from  the  fact  that  it  forms  the  basis  of  an  impor- 
tant element  in  the  theory  of  free  trade.  Protectionists,  however,  restrict 
its  application  to  certain  conditions,  while  the  English  free  trader  urges  its 
universal  adaptation  to  all  countries  and  all  conditions.  The  circumstances 
under  which  the  Phoenicians,  Carthaginians,  Venetians  and  Dutch  put  to 
sea  and  extensively  engaged  in  foreign  trade  have  already  been  pointed 
out.  That  it  was  beneficial  and  profitable,  as  it  was  also  necessary,  that 
the  English  people  should  direct  a  large  part  of  their  energy  and  capital 
to  foreign  commerce,  is  conceded  by  all.  But  simply  because  their  condi- 
tion was  adapted  to  this  branch  of  enterprise  furnishes  no  reason  why  it 
would  be  equally  profitable  and  beneficial  for  other  countries,  differently 
situated,  to  adopt  the  same  policy.  The  best  economic  thought  of  the 
world  to-da3',  regardless  of  views  upon  the  wisdom  of  free  trade  or  pro- 
tection as  applied  to  different  countries  and  conditions,  repudiates  the 
universality  of  the  alleged  economic  principles  of  free  trade.  It  is 
universally  accepted  at  the  present  time  that  there  are  no  ready-made, 
iron-bound  systems  of  political  economy  for  industrial  development,  tax- 
ation or  finance  which  apply  to  all  people,  all  countries  and  all  conditions 
alike.  The  capabilities  of  a  people,  geographical  situation,  natural 
resources  and  products  of  soil  and  climate,  must  all  be  considered  in  deter- 
mining whether  free  trade  or  protection  should  be  adopted.  Protection  is 
never  resorted  to  by  any  country  unless  its  economic  conditions  make  it 
necessary.  The  welfare  of  one  country  may  best  be  promoted  through 
extensive  foreign  trade.  The  highest  development  of  another  may  require 
a  combination  of  home  and  foreign  trade  quite  evenly  balanced,  its  foreign 
trade  being  necessary  in  order  to  promote  diversified  industries  and  divi- 
sion of  labor  at  home  ;  while  still  another  may  be  so  situated  that  by 
domestic  trade  alone  it  will  reach  the  ver>'  highest  industrial  development, 
and  its  foreign  trade  will  remain  of  secondary  consideration. 

Cuba,  for  instance,  presents  conditions  different  from  those  of  almost 
any  other  locality.  Having  neither  coal,  iron,  flax,  hemp,  jute,  unable 
to  raise  wheat  and  the  larger  cereals,  with  a  climate  too  hot  for  cattle 
raising,  for  manufacturing,  or  in  fact,  for  any  industrial  enterprises  which 
require  excessive  physical  exertion,  she  must  adopt  an  entirely  difi"erent 
commercial  policy  from  that  of  the  United  States  or  Great  Britain.  In  the 
raising  of  .sugar,  tobacco  and  tropical  fruits,  for  which  little  human  effort  is 
necessary,  she  is  unsurpassed  by  any  locality  on  the  globe.  The  produc- 
tion of  these  commodities  so  favored  by  nature  undoubtedly  aifords  the 
most  fruitful  field  for  the  enterpri.se  and  exertion  of  her  people.  By  the 
exchange  of  these  commodities  all  of  their  wants  can  be  supplied. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  3I0VEBIENT. 


Russia  and  the  United  States  present  still  another  phase  of  economic 
conditions.  Including  within  their  domains  temperate  and  semi-tropical 
regions  capable  of  producing  almost  every  species  of  food  supplies  and 
agricultural  products,  possessed  of  soil  and  climate  suitable  to  the  growth 
of  cotton,  flax,  hemp,  jute  and  nearly  all  vegetable  fibres,  with  vast  ranges 
for  sheep  and  an  abundance  of  iron,  copper,  lead,  coal  and  petroleum, 
together  with  inexhaustible  supplies  of  timber,  water  power,  and  nearly 
every  facility  for  carrying  on  all  branches  of  mining,  manufacturing  and 
agricultural  industries,'they  are  almost  independent  of  other  countries  and 
capable  of  living  within  themselves.  It  is  to  domestic  industries  and  home 
trade,  that  these  people  must  look  for  their  chief  source  of  wealth  and 
means  of  reaching  the  greatest  prosperity  and  highest  industrial  develop- 
ment. A  surplus  of  many  things  can  easily  be  produced  and  given  in 
exchange  for  tea,  cofi"ee,  spices,  tropical  fruits,  dye  stuffs,  raw  silk,  rubber 
and  all  those  luxuries  and  products  of  other  countries  which  thej'  need. 
Foreign  exchanges  must  be  confined  to  a  limited  number  of  articles  in 
order  to  give  employment  to  their  people  at  home  in  the  development  of 
their  native  resources.  Extensive  foreign  trade  cannot  be  engaged  in 
without  neglecting  the  domestic  production  of  those  wares  and  commodi- 
ties for  which  their  resources  and  people  are  well  adapted.  Their  skillful, 
enterprising  and  ambitious  people  can  find  the  greatest  reward  for  their 
exertions  in  the  vast  inland  trade  and  the  diversified  system  of  native 
industries.  The  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  United  States  cannot  be 
measured  by  the  comparatively  small  amount  of  foreign  exchanges  which 
are  made  necessary. 

Whether  we  view  England  at  the  present  time  or  go  back  to  1820,  we 
find  conditions  of  an  entirely  different  nature.  The  whole  United  King- 
dom, England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  contains  121,230  square  miles 
of  territory,  no  more  than  some  single  States  or  Territories  of  the  United 
States.  Upon  this  small  area  in  1820,  there  was  a  population  of  21,302,395, 
who  were  compelled  by  soil  and  climate  to  depend  on  the  produce  of 
other  countries,  not  only  for  a  large  portion  of  their  food  supplies,  but 
for  nearly  all  of  the  raw  materials  for  their  factories.  They  could  not  be 
maintained  within  their  own  country,  but  must  necessarily  draw  a  great 
part  of  their  means  of  subsistence  from  remote  regions.  Located  in  the 
centre  of  the  world's  markets,  at  the  very  door  of  the  most  highly  civilized 
and  densely  populated  regions  of  Europe,  through  her  vast  shipping  and 
means  of  ocean  transportation,  she  had  already  a  coinplete  monopoly 
of  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world.  With  trade  relations  extending  to  her 
colonies  and  foreign  possessions,  a  vast  commerce  was  controlled.  For 
nearly  two  centuries  the  energies  of  her  people  had  been  exerted  in  this 
direction,  with  increasing  profits  and  accumulations  of  wealth.  The  very 
existence  of  her  manufactures  depended  upon  the  foreign  trade.  Raw 
cotton  must  be  imported,  but  it  could  be  brought  from  India  or  South 


JiETUIiN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Carolina  and  deli\'ered  to  her  cotton  manufacturers  as  cheaply  as  it  could 
be  carried  from  Charleston  to  New  England.  An  increasing  expansion 
of  her  woolen  industries  required  a  reliance  on  wool  grown  in  Australia 
and  other  parts.  Her  silk  factories  must  be  provided  with  raw  material 
from  Southern  Europe  and  Asia.  Flax,  hemp,  jute,  dye  stuffs,  hides, 
rubber,  tin,  lead,  copper,  and  in  fact  nearly  all  raw  materials,  must  be  im- 
ported. In  food  supplies  she  must  also  buy  in  foreign  countries  tea,  coffee, 
sugar,  spices,  rice,  tropical  fruits,  wines,  liquors,  tobacco,  and  other  food 
products.  Even  the  timber,  masts,  spars,  tar,  pitch  and  other  material  for 
ship  building,  had  been  brought  into  the  country  for  over  a  century.  The 
English  people  were  compelled  to  depend  upon  the  purchase  of  these 
articles  for  their  development  and  commercial  prosperity.  Like  the  Vene- 
tians and  Dutch,  not  by  choice,  but  from  necessity,  they  became  fishermen 
and  mariners. 

On  the  other  hand  they  were  in  many  respects  well  fitted  for  engag- 
ing in  manufacturing  and  foreign  commerce.  With  a  plentiful  supply 
of  stone,  lime,  slate,  clay,  and  various  earths  used  in  making  glass  and 
earthenware,  with  splendid  water  power,  and  an  inexhaustible  supply 
of  coal  and  iron  ;  with  an  abundance  of  surplus  capital,  the  accumulation 
of  centuries;  in  advance  of  all  other  nations  in  the  application  of  machinery 
and  steam  power,  and  with  a  dense  population  of  trained  and  skilled  arti- 
sans, they  were  able  not  only  to  supply  all  home  demands  for  manufac- 
tured articles,  but  were  constantly  producing  a  vast  surplus  which  must 
be  sold  in  foreign  markets,  or  perish  on  their  hands.  "The  geographical 
situation  of  the  inland  districts  has  also  been  pointed  out  as  an  advantage 
in  transportation,  each  manufacturing  centre  being  only  a  few  miles  from 
a  seaport.  Thus  situated,  without  foreign  trade  the  English  people  would 
perish  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  or  be  driven  to  other  regions  to  find  em- 
ployment. In  order  to  subsist,  they  must  be  kept  at  work.  Raw  materials 
must  be  imported,  manufactured  into  finished  products,  and  in  finished 
form  exchanged  for  a  new  supply  of  raw  materials  and  food.  In  this  way, 
by  a  system  of  foreign  exchanges,  their  industrial  life  is  perpetuated. 
Foreign  trade  at  this  time  was  the  great  source  of  their  wealth,  enterprise 
and  progress. 

With  the  foregoing  considerations  the  reader  will  readily  appreciate 
the  proposition  quoted  from  the  petition.  While  a  certain  class  of  foreign 
trade  might  be  especially  beneficial  to  Cuba  or  England,  it  would  inflict 
an  absolute  injury  upon  a  country  whose  industries  were  unable  to  with- 
stand competition.  Free  trade  writers  refer  to  this  part  of  the  petition  as 
though  it  announced  fundamental  truths  which  had  just  been  discovered. 
It  contained  nothing  that  had  not  been  well  understood  for  at  least  a  cen- 
tury by  the  English  manufacturers  and  merchants. 

This  remarkable  petition  contains  another  statement  which  throws 
much  light  upon  the  situation  of  the  English  people   at   this  time.     It 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 


exposes  the  whole  free  trade  movement,  and  discloses  the  condition  under 
which  the  English  manufacturers  favored  the  removal  of  protective  duties 
on  manufactured  goods.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  assume  that  English 
manufacturers  abandoned  the  protective  system  upon  high  moral  grounds 
or  because  of  any  scientific  notions  or  regard  for  great  economic  truths. 
At  no  time  have  they  shown  the  slightest  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the 
people  of  other  countries.  Every  step  in  the  free  trade  movement,  from 
its  inception  to  its  close,  was  promoted  by  that  inordinate  selfishness,  that 
spirit  of  greed  and  avarice  which  has  always  characterized  the  commercial 
classes  of  the  country.  That  protection  was  abandoned  because  the 
English  people  were  able  then  to  manufacture  goods  more  cheaply  than 
they  could  be  made  in  any  other  place,  is  proven  not  only  by  their  condi- 
tion, but  by  their  own  statement  and  claims  made  at  the  time. 

Upon  this  proposition  the  attention  of  the  reader  is  first  called  to 
another  paragraph  of  the  petition,  which  contains  this  remarkable  statement: 

(2)      "  Thai  of  the  numerous  protective  and  prohibitory  duties  of  our 

commercial  code,  it  may  be  proved,  that very  few  are  of  any  ultimate 

benefit  to  the  classes  in  whose  favor  they  were  originally  instituted." 

The  reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  this  declaration  emanates  from 
the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of  Eondon  ;  that  it  was  drafted  by  Mr. 
Tooke,  one  of  the  most  competent  authorities  upon  commercial  subjects 
then  living.  This  shows  that  England  even  then  had  outgrown  protec- 
tion. Her  artisans  and  manufacturers  had  attained  such  efiiciency  and 
skill  that  they  held  an  absolute  monopoly  of  their  home  market.  They 
were  able  to-  undersell  all  competitors.  They  feared  no  rivals  either  at 
home  or  abroad. 

The  invention  of  machinerj^  and  the  accumulation  of  capital  had  made 
them  so  superior  to  the  industrial  classes  of  every  other  country,  that  with 
minor  exceptions  they  could  throw  down  the  bars  and  defy  all  competitors 
without  a  single  English  factorj''s  being  closed  or  an  English  artisan's  being 
thrown  out  of  employment.  This  is  a  most  signal  proof  of  the  value  of 
protection.  Modern  free  traders  persistentlj-  urge  that  protection  brings 
into  existence  weak  and  sickly  industries.  It  seems,  however,  that  it  had 
the  opposite  eifect  in  England,  whose  industries,  under  its  beneficent 
influence,  reached  such  a  high  degree  of  perfection  that  they  became  the 
strongest  in  the  world. 

From  1820  to  1846  the  perfection  of  machinery  and  expansion  of 
industries  went  steadily  on,  and  at  the  time  protective  tariffs  were  finally 
removed,  their  industries  must  have  been  more  independent  of  foreign 
competition  than  they  were  in  1820.  J.  R.  McCulloch  writing  in  1847 
furnishes  stronger  evidence  upon  this  proposition  than  the  declaration  cited 
above.     He  savs  : 


The  natural  capabilit 


for  carrying  on  the  business  of  manufacti 


all   things  considered,  decidedly  superior  to  those   of   any  other  peopl 


PxETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


But  the  superiority  to  which  we  have  already  arrived  is,  perhaps,  the  greatest 
advantage  in  our  favor.  Our  master  manufacturers,  engineers  and  artisans  are  more 
intelligent,  skillful  and  enterprising  than  those  of  any  other  country ;  and  the 
extraordinary  inventions  they  have  already  made,  and  their  familiarity  with  all  the 
principles  and  details  of  the  business,  will  not  only  enable  them  to  perfect  the 
processes  already  in  use,  but  can  hardly  fail  to  lead  to  the  discoverj'  of  others.  Our 
establishments  for  spinning,  weaving,  printing,  bleaching,  etc.,  are  infinitel)- more 
complete  and  perfect  than  any  that  exist  elsewhere ;  the  division  of  labor  in  them  is 
carried  to  an  incomparably  greater  extent ;  the  workmen  are  trained  from  infancy  to 
industrious  habits,  and  have  attained  that  peculiar  dexterity  and  sleight  of  hand  in 
the  performance  of  their  separate  tasks,  that  can  only  be  acquired  by  long  and 
unremitting  application  to  the  same  employment.  Why,  then,  having  all  these 
advantages  on  our  side,  should  we  not  keep  the  start  we  have  already  gained?  Every 
other  people  that  attempt  to  set  up  manufactures  must  obviously  labor  under  the 
greatest  difficulties  as  compared  with  us.  Their  establishments  cannot,  at  first,  be 
sufficiently  large  to  enable  the  division  of  employments  to  be  carried  to  any  consider- 
able extent,  at  the  same  time  that  expertness  in  manipulation,  and  in  the  details  of 
the  various  processes,  can  only  be  attained  by  slow  degrees.  It  appears,  therefore, 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  such  new  beginners,  having  to  withstand  the  competition 
of  those  who  have  already  arrived  at  a  very  high  degree  of  perfection  in  the  art, 
must  be  immediately  driven  out  of  every  market  equally  accessible  to  both  parties; 
and  that  7iothing  but  the  aid  derived  from  restrictive  regulations  and  prohibitions 
will  be  effectual  to  prevent  the  total  destruction  of  their  establishments  in  the  countries 
where  they  are  set  up. 

Speaking  of  the  ability  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  resist 
their  competition,  he  says  : 

It  is  ludicrous,  indeed,  to  suppose  that  a  half-peopled  country,  like  America, 
possessed  of  boundless  tracts  of  unoccupied  land  of  the  highest  degree  of  fertility, 
should  be  able  successfully  to  contend  in  manufacturing  industry  with  an  old  settled, 
fully  peopled  and  very  rich  country,  like  Great  Britain.  Little  as  we  have  to  fear 
from  America,  we  have  still  less  to  fear  from  Swiss  or  Saxon  competition.  America 
has  some  advantage  over  England  in  the  greater  cheapness  of  the  raw  material ;  but 
Switzerland  and  Saxony,  situated  almost  in  the  centre  of  Europe,  can  only  draw 
their  supplies  of  raw  cotton  by  a  distant  land  carriage  by  way  of  Hamburg,  Mar- 
seilles and  Genoa ;  and  we  have  the  best  authority  for  affirming  that  a  bale  of  cotton 
may  be  conveyed  at  a  less  expense  from  Charle.ston  to  Manchester,  than  from  Genoa, 
Amsterdam  or  Hamburg,  to  Switzerland  or  Saxony.  Switzerland  is  altogether 
destitute  of  coal ;  all  that  she  does  is  done  by  water  power ;  and  that  is  said  to  be 
nearly  exhausted.  It  is  not,  however,  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Swiss  and  Saxons 
should  have  succeeded  in  supplying  their  own  markets  and  some  of  those  immedi- 
ately contiguous,  with  certain  species  of  yarn ;  or  that  they  should  export  hosiery 
and  such  other  articles  as  they  can  manufacture  on  a  small  scale,  in  their  cottages; 
but  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  they  should  ever  be  able  to  do  much  more  than  this.' 

Again  he  says: 

Our  power  looms  are  superior  to  those  of  any  other  country.  There  is  not  in 
fact,  with  the  exception  of  the  dyes  a  single  particular  connected  with  the  cotton 
manufacture  in  which  we  have  not  a  manifest  superiority  over  the  Swiss,  Saxon, 
French,  Prussians  and  every  Continental  nation. 

'  Mcculloch's  Commercial  Dictionary,  pp.  462-3. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 


The  3'ear  before  free  trade  was  adopted  (1845)  Mr.  Porter  said: 
England  is,  beyond  all  other  countries,  interested  in  the  most  perfect  freedom 
being  given  to  this  as  well  as  to  every  other  branch  of  commerce.  Placed  beyond  all 
comparison  at  the  head  of  civilization  as  regards  manufacturing  skill,  with  capital  far 
more  ample  than  that  possessed  by  any  other  people,  with  cheap  and  inexhaustible 
supplies  of  iron  and  fuel,  and  with  institutions  everj-  way  favorable  to  the  utmost 
development  of  tlie  industry  and  ingenuity  of  her  citizens,  she  must  always  be  able 
at  least  to  maintain  her  superiorit}-  of  position  where  circumstances  are  in  other 
respects  equal  ;  and  be  ready  to  turn  to  the  utmost  advantage  every  improvement 
which  may  reach  her  in  common  with  less  powerful  rivals.' 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the  free  trade  movement 
was  started.  It  was  fully  understood  that  the  English  people  had 
everything  to  gain  and  absolutely  nothing  to  lose  by  its  adoption. 
The  removal  of  duties  on  manufactured  goods  extended  no  conces- 
sions or  advantages  to  foreign  manufacturers  in  British  markets.  The 
repeal  of  protective  laws  by  the  United  States  and  other  countries 
would  result  in  an  almost  unlimited  expansion  of  England's  trade,  thus 
conferring  upon  her  an  absolute  monopoly'  of  the  markets  of  all  coun- 
tries. Under  free  trade  in  England  manufacturers  and  artisans  were  as 
secure  from  assault  as  under  protection,  while  the  verj'  reverse  of  this 
was  true  in  the  United  States,  and  other  countries.  As  stated  by  Mr. 
McCulloch,  "Nothing  but  the  aid  derived  from  restrictive  regulations 
(protection)  would  prevent  the  total  destruction  of  their  establishment." 
Similar  statements  might  be  quoted  from  other  English  writers  at  the 
time,  to  .sustain  this  position,  but  cumulative  evidence  will  not  strengthen 
a  fact  already  proven. 

In  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  a  third  statement  contained  in  the 
petition  of  1820  becomes  verj^  interesting.  The  United  States  and  the 
Continent  intrenched  behind  the  walls  of  protection  were  enjoying  a 
prosperity  which  was  most  galling  to  English  manufacturers.  The  war 
of  18 1 2  had  been  very  unfortunate  for  England  in  the  animosities  and 
prejudices  which  it  aroused.  The  spirit  of  enmity  and  hatred  which  had 
existed  among  the  French  against  the  Engli.sh  for  centuries  was  intensified 
by  the  Napoleonic  wars.  National  jealousies,  which  were  then  dominant 
among  all  Continental  powers,  made  pacific  measures  and  treaties  difficult. 
The  signers  of  this  petition  well  knew  that  nothing  short  of  a  most 
unusual  course  would  make  the  slightest  impression  upon  foreign 
countries.  The  great  question  in  England  was  not  the  perpetuation  of 
their  own  industries  by  protection,  but  how  to  get  rid  of  protective  tariffs 
in  the  United  States  and  other  countries,  which  alone  stood  in  the  way  of 
an  almost  unlimited  sale  of  their  wares.  This  was  the  great  evil  from 
which  they  were  suffering.  The  restrictions  on  their  commerce,  of  which 
they  complained,  were  on  the  statute  books  of  other  nations.  The  custom 
house  officers,  who  so  exasperated  them  and  against  whom  they  railed  with 

'  Progress  of  the  Nation,  p.  263. 
10 


RETVRN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


such  bitterness,  were  collecting  duties  on  English  goods  imported  into 
other  countries.  Their  invectives,  ridicule  and  sarcasm  were  hurled 
against  a  system  which  had  become  injurious  to  their  trade  only  by  being 
practiced  by  their  rivals.  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the 
entire  British  press,  their  orators,  statesmen,  professors  and  manufacturers 
entered  upon  a  raid  against  the  policy  of  protection.  What  specific  could 
be  applied  to  the  condition  ?  Foreign  tariffs  alone  stood  in  their  way. 
The  remedy  must  be  their  modification  or  abolishment.  The  people  of 
the  United  States  must  be  convinced  that  protection  to  native  industries 
was  radically  and  totally  wrong  ;  that  it  was  an  unwise  policy  for  any 
people  to  pursue  under  any  and  all  circumstances.  A  campaign  of  educa- 
tion must  be  carried  on  in  foreign  countries.  They  had  always  been 
sensible  of  the  fact  that  the  building  of  factories  in  the  United  States  and 
other  countries  was  in  conflict  with  their  interests,  but  it  was  not  until 
after  the  battle  of  Waterloo  that  they  set  up  the  claim  that  protective  tariffs 
were  unwise  and  harmful.  Step  by  step  they  had  advanced  in  those  dis- 
coveries and  improvements,  which  increased  their  ability  to  outstrip 
and  undersell  all  competitors.  At  the  cannon's  mouth  they  had  swept 
the  merchant  vessels  of  all  rivals  from  the  sea,  annihilated  their  commerce, 
and  taken  po.ssession  of  their  markets.  They  could  not  batter  down  protec- 
tive walls  with  shot  and  shell.  They  could  not  remove  protective  barriers 
at  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  They  must  resort  to  other  means.  There  is 
another  thing  of  vital  importance  which  they  could  not  do.  They  could 
not  satisfy  the  people  of  other  nations  that  the  polic)-  of  protection  was 
unwise,  so  long  as  they  maintained  it  themselves.  They  must  first 
abandon  protection  before  \h.ey  could  consistently  denounce  it  as  an  evil. 
The  literature  of  the  times,  the  debates  in  parliament,  the  declarations  of 
their  manufacturers  and  economic  writers,  all  prove  the  fact  that  the  chief 
reason  for  abandoning  protection  was  the  influence  such  action  would  have 
upon  other  countries.  It  would  destroy  one  of  the  chief  arguments  which 
was  being  used  against  them.  Upon  this  proposition  the  attention  of  the 
reader  is  again  called  to  the  petition  of  the  merchants  and  manufacturers 
of  London,  which  contained  the  following  statement : 

(3)  That  a  declaration  against  the  anti-commercial  principles  0/ our  restrictive 
system  is  of  the  more  importance  at  the  present  juncture,  inasnnich  as,  in  several 
instances  of  recent  occurrence,  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of  foreign  countries 
have  assailed  their  respective  governments  zvith  applications  for  further  protective 
or  prohibitory  duties  and  regulations,  urging  the  example  and  authority  of  this 
country  against  which  they  are  almost  exclusively  directed,  as  a  sanction  for  the 
policy  of  such  measures.  And  certainly,  if  the  reasoning  upon  which  our  restrictions 
have  been  defended  is  worth  anything,  it  will  apply  in  behalf  of  the  regulations  of 
foreign  States  against  us. 

That  nothing  would  tend  more  to  counteract  the  commercial  hostility  of  foreign 
States,  than  the  adoption  of  a  more  enlightened  and  more  conciliatory  policy  on  the 
part  of  this  country. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 


The  foregoing  declaration  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  show  that  the 
removal  of  protective  duties  was  a  mere  matter  of  diplomacy  and  was  not 
asked  for  because  of  themselves  they  in  any  way  obstructed  or  interfered 
with  England's  foreign  trade.  It  was  simply  to  put  themselves  in  a  situa- 
tion to  accomplish  their  purpose  more  easily.  The  utter  disregard  for 
economic  principles  is  revealed  in  the  next  paragraph  as  follows  : 

(4)  That  allhough,  as  a  matter  of  mere  diplomacy ,  it  may  sometimes  answer  to 
hold  the  removal  of  particular  prohibitions,  or  high  duties,  as  depending  upon 
corresponding  concessions  by  other  States  in  our  favor,  it  does  not  follow  that  we 
should  maintain  our  restrictions  in  cases  where  the  desired  concessions  on  their  part 
cannot  be  obtained.  Our  restrictions  would  not  be  less  prejudicial  to  our  own  capital 
and  industry,  because  other  governments  persist  in  preserving  impolitic  regulations. 

Although  Mr.  Thomas  Tooke,  the  author  of  this  paragraph,  is  held 
up  before  the  world  as  a  model  economist,  the  plan  suggested  is  so  dis- 
creditable that  it  has  since  been  a  subject  of  apology  by  the  English 
writers.  The  attempt  to  overreach  other  nations  and  destroj'  their  indus- 
tries by  treaty  stipulations  in  which  England  would  gain  everj'thing  and 
.surrender  nothing,  while  the  other  contracting  party  would  yield  important 
advantages  and  lose  everything,  constitutes  the  basis  of  reciprocity  as  it 
first  suggested  itself  to  English  traders.  But  the  pretence  of  holding 
a  club  over  the  heads  of  other  nations,  with  the  design  of  forcing  them  to 
terms,  proved  a  complete  failure.  The  more  surpri.sing  feature  is  the 
fact  that  this  disingenuous  diplomacy  was  actually  attempted. 

Mr.  Porter,  speaking  of  this  paragraph,  and  the  efforts  of  the  Engli.sh 
spider  to  induce  the  foreign  fly  to  come  into  his  parlor,  says  :  ' '  From 
some  cause  or  other,  probably  the  misconception  of  our  motive,  or  the 
fear  of  being  overreached,  it  has  generally  happened  that  it  has  been 
thought  unwise  to  grant  the  price  we  have  demanded  for  the  alteration.'" 

The  prayer  for  relief  contained  in  the  petition,  outlines  the  general 
plan  which  was  subsequently  adopted,  and  has  since  been  adhered  to,  as 
follows  : 

(5)  That  in  thus  declaring,  as  your  petitioners  do,  their  conviction  of  the 
impolicy  and  injustice  of  the  restrictive  system,  and  in  desiring  every  practical 
relaxation  of  it,  they  have  in  view  only  such  parts  of  it  as  are  not  connected,  or 
are  only  subordinately  so,  with  the  public  revenue.  As  long  as  the  necessity  for  the 
present  amount  of  revenue  subsists,  your  petitioners  cannot  expect  so  important  a 
branch  of  it  as  the  customs  to  be  given  up,  nor  to  be  materially  diminished  unless 
some  substitute,  less  objectionable,  be  suggested.  But  it  is  against  every  restrictive 
regulation  of  trade  not  essential  to  the  revenue — against  all  duties  merely  protective 
from  foreign  competition — and  against  the  excess  of  such  duties  as  are  partly  for 
the  purpose  of  revenue,  and  partly  for  that  of  protection — that  the  prayer  of  the 
present  petition  is  respectfully  submitted  to  the  wisdom  of  Parliament. 

Your  petitioners,  therefore,  humbly  pray  that  your  honorable  House  will  be 
pleased  to  take  the  subject  into  consideration,  and  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may 

>  Progress  of  the  Nation,  p.  3S5. 


FETCRX  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


be  calculated  to  give  greater  freedom  to  foreign  commerce,  and  thereby  to  increase 
the  resources  of  the  States. 

The  action  taken  by  the  sigtiers  of  this  petition,  was  the  first  organ- 
ized movement  toward  the  adoption  of  free  trade  in  England.  Although 
it  did  not  at  that  time  assume  the  form  of  specific  agitation,  or  go  beyond 
the  presentation  of  the  petition,  yet  it  undoubtedly  played  an  important 
part  in  arousing  English  manufacturers  and  ship  owners,  and  pointed  out 
the  remedy,  or  best  means  of  attacking  the  barriers  which  were  raised 
against  English  trade  in  foreign  markets.  It  was  not,  however,  until  1839 
that  a  free  trade  party  was  organized  and  definite  agitation  of  the  question 
began.  In  the  mean  time,  however,  foreign  tariffs  were  a  constant  thorn 
in  the  .side  of  the  English  manufacturers,  and  as  English  factories 
increased,  as  machinery  became  more  perfected,  artisans  more  efficient, 
and  yearly  outputs  greater,  the  necessity  for  breaking  down  the  tariffs 
of  other  countries  and  finding  a  sale  for  English  goods,  became  more 
pressing. 

The  petition  of  the  London  merchants  was  soon  followed  by  a  reform 
of  the  tariff  laws.  Although  the  petition  was  presented  to  a  parliament 
made  up  almost  wholly  of  protectionists,  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Baring  and  his 
associates,  undoubtedly  ha.stened  action.  The  situation  was  such  that  a 
revision  was  not  only  needed,  but  could  be  made  without  in  the  slightest 
degree  disturbing  the  essential  principles  of  protection.  The  benefits  to  be 
derived  from  certain  changes  were  recognized  and  concurred  in  by  nearly 
all  members  of  parliament.  Successive  revisions  of  the  tariff  were  made 
between  18 15  and  1843,  the  more  important  measures  being  the  acts  of 
1824  and  1825,  and  that  of  1842.  The  free  trade  agitation  was  not  begun 
until  the  organization  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League,  which  occurred  in 
1839,  and  there  was  no  departure  from  the  principles  of  protection  until 
1846,  when  a  parliament  which  had  been  elected  as  protectionist  was  con- 
verted into  a  majority  for  free  trade.  It  .should  be  borne  in  mind  that  all 
the  tariff  legislation  and  revisions  up  to  and  including  the  act  of  1842, 
were  carried  through  parliaments,  which  were  avowedly  protectionist. 
The  purpose  of  .such  legislation  was  to  simplif}*  the  laws  then  in  force,  and 
to  aid  manufacturing  interests,  without  abandoning  the  policy  under  which 
England  had  become  the  greatest  commercial  country  in  the  world. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  review  in  detail,  the  numerous  acts  which,  during 
this  time,  had  in  one  way  or  another  modified  or  improved  the  tariff  regu- 
lations. They  consisted,  however,  in  reducing  the  duties  on  manufactured 
articles,  as  well  as  on  raw  materials.  In  1824  the  law  which  had  been  in 
existence  since  1765  prohibiting  the  import  of  manufactures  of  silk  was 
repealed  and  a  protective  duty  substituted,  equivalent  to  thirty  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  The  duties  upon  raw  and  thrown  silk  were  also  reduced,  but 
these  provisions  did  not  take  cfTect  until  1S26.  This  mea.sure  was  carried 
through  ]iarlianKnl  under  the   leadership  of  Mr.  Huskis.>^on,  who  at  thai 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT. 


time  was  the  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  He  was  assisted  by  Can- 
ning, Robinson,  Wallace  and  Sir  Robert  Peel,  all  of  whom  entertained 
liberal  views  upon  the  question.  Mr.  Huskisson's  death,  which  occurred 
in  1 830,  undoubtedly  deprived  the  manufacturers  of  the  ser\'ices  of  a  states- 
man, who,  if  he  had  lived,  would  have  become  an  advocate  of  the  doctrine 
of  free  trade.  In  1825  a  general  measure  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Huskisson, 
which  greatly  reduced  duties  on  raw  materials,  and  finished  goods.  For 
the  next  fifteen  years,  the  attention  of  parliament  was  given  to  the  Reform 
Act,  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  Catholic  emancipation.  Harvests  were 
generally  good,  the  industries  were  in  a  flourishing  state  and  the  country 
was  prosperous.  In  1840  the  tariff  was  again  taken  up  for  consideration, 
and  a  committee  was  appointed  by  parliament  to  inquire  into,  and  report 
upon,  the  condition  and  nature  of  the  duties  and  tariff  laws  then  in  force. 
The  work  was  accomplished  principally  by  Mr.  Joseph  Hume,  assisted  by 
G.  R.  Porter  and  John  Macgregor,  all  experts  connected  with  the  Board  of 
Trade,  or  the  statistical  department  of  the  government.  From  the  report 
of  this  committee  it  appears  that  the  duties  then  existing  on  the  statute 
books,  had  already  been  reduced  to  a  very  moderate  protective  basis. 
Although  the  statutes  contained  many  useless  provisions  and  had  brought 
into  effect  a  complicated  system  of  collecting  import  duties,  the  objection- 
able features  could  easily  be  remedied  by  a  more  simple  and  business-like 
system  of  administration,  without  conflicting  with  the  principles  either  of 
protection  or  free  trade.  The  embarrassing  features  of  the  law  are  pointed 
out  in  the  report  of  the  committee  as  follows  :  ' '  The  tariff  of  the  United 
Kingdom  presents  neither  congruity  nor  unity  of  purpose  ;  no  general 
principles  seem  to  have  been  applied.  The  schedule  of  custom  duties 
enumerated  no  fewer  than  eleven  hundred  and  fifty  different  rates  of  duty, 
chargeable  to  imported  articles. ' ' 

As  will  appear  later,  a  large  portion  of  these  articles  had  ceased 
entirely  to  yield  any  revenue  to  speak  of,  either  because  the  duties  were 
so  low,  or  because  the  English  manufacturer  held  such  a  complete 
monopoly  of  the  home  market  that  none  were  imported.  The  duties  on 
manufactured  goods,  then  in  existence  (1840),  as  shown  by  the  report  of 
this  committee,  were  as  follows: 
'  The  duty  on  manufactures  of  china  and  porcelain  ware 

was 15  to   20  per  cent 

The  duty  on  manufactures  of  leather 20  to  30  per  cent 

"       "      "              "             "    brass    and   copper    .    .    .  25  to  30  per  cent 
"      "  "  "    cotton 10  to  20  per  cent 

"       "      "  ■ '  "    flax 20  to  40  per  cent 

"    articles  manufactured  from  skins  and  furs  .  30  per  cent 

The  duty  on  corn,  as  prices  ranged 7  to  50  per  cent 

"      "    bar  iron $7.50  a  ton 

1  The  Tariff  Question,  Bigelow,  p.  4. 


KETCHX  TO  FREE  Til. IDE. 


No  article  had  as  yet  been  placed  on  the  free  list.  The  duties  in  exist- 
ence, not  only  afiForded  ample  protection,  but  in  fact,  in  most  instances,  so 
far  as  the  question  of  protection  is  concerned,  were  then  considered  to  be 
unnecessary.  Although  the  duties  on  textile  fabrics  were  \-ery  low,  with 
the  exception  of  silks,  none  were  imported. 

The  advantages  in  this  respect  to  which  England  had  attained,  as  early  as  1825, 
were  strongly  stated  by  Mr.  Huskisson  in  his  speech  of  March  25  of  that  year.  In 
regard  to  cotton  manufactures,  the  English,  he  said,  were  acknowledged  to  be  superior 
to  every  other  nation,  and,  by  reason  of  better  quality  and  greater  cheapness,  were 
underselling  their  competitors  in  all  the  markets  of  the  world,  not  excepting  the 
East  Indies,  the  first  seat  of  that  manufacture,  where  the  raw  material  is  grown,  and 
where  labor  is  cheaper  than  in  any  other  country.  1 

Mr.  Porter  says,  "  Such  duties  must  long  ago  have  become  wholly 
inoperative  through  the  perfection  and  economy  which  had  been  attained 
in  our  manufactures. ' ' ' 


Increase  of  Revenue 
from  Direct  Taxes 
Imposed  : 


1814 
1815 


1S19 
1820 
1821 
1822 
1823 
1S24 
1825 
1826 
1827 


1S32 
1833 
1S34 
1835 
1S36 
1S37 
1838 
1839 
1840 
1841 
1842 
1843 


$2,119,685 

1,600,290 

39.955 

6,680 

i5>474,5io 
598,010 
213,210 

92,980 
228,025 
215,000 
940,000 
107,010 
9.830 

3,480,020 

3. '37.93° 

222,630 


19.955 

500 

8,665 

3,778,365 


$67,285,595 


Revenue  Lost  by 

Indirect  Taxes 

Repealed  since  1815 


11,113.745 

16,143,960 

182,475 

47.820 


2,356,545 

10,695,505 

20,251,250 

8,523,620 

18,197.7.55 

9,869,060 

20,190 

259.990 

632,030 

20,469,775 

7,992,680 

3,736,320 

7,634,570 

10,457,580 

829,085 

4.948,930 

1,170 

1,445 

316,290 

94.795 

135,880 

14,185,000 


$162,656,695 
67.285,595 


$3,764. 
4,081, 
3.981, 
3,883. 
3.959. 
3.974. 
4.007. 
3.976, 
3.982. 
3.95S. 
3.905, 
3,890, 
3.919. 
3.887. 
3.861, 
3,856, 
3,787, 
3,770, 
3,758, 
3,718, 
3,758, 
3.718, 
3.792, 
3.807, 
3,811, 
3,806, 
3.832, 
3.831 
3.871 
3,865 


286,180 
559,700 
000,980 
712,015 
336,570 
902,400 
826,550 
563.835 
650,720 
508,060 
616,110 
641.325 
008,695 
3S4.450 
612,700 
259,660 
,434.985 
,502,745 
,294.415 
,376,145 
,294,415 
,376,495 
,749,330 
,112,950 
,375,940 
,738,450 
,708,400 
,858,625 
,599,565 
,341,700 


Revenue  Yearly. 


$355,672,515 
361,052,560 
311,322,730 
260,279,565 
268,738,975 
263,244,235 
271,414,790 
279,170,960 
278,318,250 
289,864,995 
296,812,015 
286,369,345 
274,474,945 
274,662,590 
275,935,710 
253,933,010 
280,283,080 
232,132,230 
234,943.775 
231,356,630 
232,126,315 
229,466,845 
242,955,900 
252,963,265 
256,394,640 
260,291,745 
258,467,550 
261,577,165 
255,600,200 
284,675,110 


'  Revenue  reduced. 


2d  series,  p.  1196,  quoted  in  The  Tariff  Question,  p.  6.  2  progress  of  the 
m  a  compilation  made  by  Archibald  Alison  from  official  papers  from  the 
u  1S45,  and  published  as  an  appendix  to  his  "  England  in  1815  and  1845." 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  FREE  TRADE  MOVEMENT 


The  very  liberal  reductions  in  duties  which  had  been  made  by  the 
protectionists  between  1815  and  1840,  are  shown  by  the  above  table, 
from  which  it  appears  that  there  had  been  lost  by  repealing  duties  on 
imports  $162,656,695  during  this  period.  The  interest  on  the  national 
debt  was  so  large,  and  the  necessity  for  revenue  so  great,  that  parliament 
was  compelled  not  only  to  retain  many  of  the  duties  which  would  other- 
wise have  been  repealed  but  to  resort  to  direct  taxes,  from  which  $67, 
285,595  were  derived  in  order  to  compensate  for  the  loss  caused  by  the 
revisions  which  had  been  made.  Nearly  the  whole  of  this  $162,656,695 
reduction  of  revenue  was  caused  by  the  repeal  of  duties  on  raw  materials, 
the  amount  of  imports  of  manufactured  goods  being  small  throughout 
this  period. 

An  impression  has  been  created  to  the  effect  that  when  the  Anti-Corn 
Law  League  was  organized,  the  customs  tariffs  of  England  were  greatly  in 
need  of  reform.  Mr.  Mongredien  said  that,  "  With  the  exception  of  a 
few  slight  changes  in  the  silk  duties  introduced  by  Mr.  Huskisson  in  1823, 
the  English  tariff  had  till  now  (1841)  remained  in  the  same  old  barba- 
rous state."  ' 

This  is  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Mongredien  in  describing  the  situation 
of  the  tariff  at  the  time  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  began  its  work.  This 
is  a  sample  of  the  misrepresentations  as  to  the  tariff  laws  of  England  at 
that  time  so  frequentlj-  indulged  in  by  free  trade  writers.  Mongredien  will 
be  remembered  as  the  member  of  the  Cobden  Club,  who,  in  1880,  wrote  a 
scandalous  misrepresentation  entitled  ' '  An  x\ddress  to  the  Western  Farmer 
of  America,"  which  was  gratuitously  distributed  by  the  Cobden  Club 
throughout  the  United  States  during  the  Congressional  election  of  1882. 
Every  reader  of  free  trade  literature  well  understands  the  deliberate  effort 
which  has  been  made  by  free  trade  writers  to  discredit  the  tariff  laws  of 
England,  and  to  create  an  impression  that  the  free  trade  movement  in 
England  was  made  a  necessity  because  of  the  most  "burdensome," 
"oppressive,"  "arbitrary,"  "unjust,"  and  "  barbarous "  laws  then  on 
the  English  statute  books. 

While  it  is  true  that  there  were  many  objectionable  features  in  its 
tariff  schedules  as  they  existed  in  1839,  3'et  they  did  not  involve  those 
principles  which  divide  protectionists  and  free  traders.  The  administrative 
features  of  the  laws  were  "burdensome,"  "arbitrary,"  and  "oppressive." 
The  same  article  in  many  instances  was  classified  under  different  heads, 
subjected  to  different  rates  of  duties  and  so  described  that  it  was  diflScult 
for  custom  house  officers  to  determine  to  what  class  it  belonged.  Under 
the  numerous  acts  of  parliament  imposing  duties  through  the  many  years 
which  iad  elapsed,  many  inconsistencies  had  arisen  which  made  the  laws 
difficult  to  understand  and  to  enforce.  That  a  revision  was  necessary  to 
simplify  the  tariff  code  is  undoubtedly  true,  but   it  is  unjust  to  condemn 

'  History  of  Free  Trade,  p.  65 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


the  policy  of  protection  to  home  iudustries  because  of  those  administrative 
features  which  could  be  improved  without  in  any  way  violating  the  cardi- 
nal principles  of  the  system.  Such  criticisms  are  made  by  the  profes- 
sional free  trade  writers  in  order  to  cast  discredit  upon  a  system  which 
they  are  seeking  by  every  means  possible  to  bring  into  disrepute. 


CHAPTER   II. 
Free  Trade  Legislation. 

Before  considering  the  subsequent  legislation  of  1842,  and  the  Acts 
of  1845  and  1846,  it  may  be  well  to  point  out  some  of  the  general  features 
of  the  regulations  then  in  existence,  and  show  how  they  affected  the 
various  industries  of  the  countrj'. 

Every  government,  whether  practicing  protection  or  free  trade,  derives 
at  least  a  part  of  its  revenues  from  duties  on  imports.  A  free  trade  country 
maintains  its  custom  houses  and  enacts  tariff  laws,  solely  for  revenue  pur- 
poses, while  a  country  practicing  protection  has  a  double  purpose  in  view  : 
first,  to  provide  an  income  for  the  government,  and  secondl)',  to  shield  its 
domestic  industries  from  foreign  competition.  The  custom  tariffs  of  Great 
Britain  at  this  time  were  divided  into  two  general  branches  : 

1.  Duties  levied  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue. 

2.  Duties  levied  for  the  purpose  of  protection. 

For  purposes  of  revenue,  duties  were  imposed  on  two  classes  of  arti- 
cles, as  follows  : 

1 .  Upon  those  food  products,  the  like  of  which  could  not  be  pro- 
duced in  Great  Britain,  such  as  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  rice,  cocoa,  spices, 
lemons,  oranges  and  tropical  fruits  ;  also  on  ale,  beer,  wines,  liquors, 
tobacco,  diamonds  and  other  luxuries.  Commodities  of  this  class  were 
regarded  by  both  protectionists  and  free  traders  as  proper  objects  of  taxa- 
tion. The  large  income  which  it  was  necessary  for  the  English  govern- 
ment to  raise  each  year  forbade  those  distinctions  which  have  since  been 
made  by  protectionists  in  other  countries,  between  those  commodities  like 
tea,  coffee,  sugar,  etc.,  which  have  now  become  articles  of  involuntarj- 
consumption,  and  beer,  wine,  liquors,  tobacco,  etc.,  which  are  concededly 
luxuries. 

2.  The  second  class  of  articles  upon  which  duties  were  imposed 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  were  those  raw  materials  which 
could  not  be  produced  at  home  in  sufficient  quantities  to  supply  the 
demand  of  their  factories.  At  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  every  con- 
ceivable article  of  this  class  was  a  subject  of  taxation.  During  the  struggle 
new  import  duties  had  been  imposed  or  existing  duties  increased  upon  raw 
silk,  cotton,  wool,  hemp,  jute,  flax,  rubber,  dye  stuffs,  timber  and  mate- 
rials for  ship  building.  In  fact,  the  exigencies  of  the  war  had  made  it  nec- 
essary to  subject  to  taxation  every  conceivable  species  of  property  and 
branch  of  industry.     The   monopoly  held  by  the   British  manufacturers 

•     (153) 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


during  the  Napoleonic  wars  was  so  complete  that  the  duties  on  these  raw 
materials  did  not  conflict  with  their  ability  to  control  foreign  markets  and 
extend  their  trade  ;  but  when  the  United  States  and  Continental  countries 
imposed  protective  barriers,  the  question  of  cheapness  became  so  impor- 
tant to  English  manufacturers  in  competing  with  rivals  in  those  countries 
where  protective  tariffs  had  been  set  up,  that  the  greatest  economy  in  pro- 
duction became  necessary.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  necessities  of  the 
government  would  permit,  protectionists  and  free  traders  united  in  placing 
them  on  the  free  list,  and  giving  to  English  manufacturers  the  full  advan- 
tage of  their  cheapness.  Neither  protectionists  nor  free  traders,  in  England 
or  in  any  other  country,  have  ever  placed  duties  on  this  class  of  arti- 
cles, excepting  for  revenue  purposes  and  under  circumstances  which  required 
a  resort  to  extraordinary  means  of  taxation.  The  policy  of  protection  in 
England  prior  to  the  Napoleonic  wars,  gave  everj'  encouragement  possi- 
ble to  home  manufacturers,  both  by  shielding  them  from  competition,  and 
by  admitting  those  raw  materials  which  could  not  be  produced  in  Eng- 
land, either  free  or  by  the  payment  of  low  duties.  By  the  legislation  of 
Walpole,  in  1721,  thirty-eight  articles  of  raw  materials  were  placed  on 
the  free  list.' 

Even  bounties  were  offered  to  encourage  the  import  of  spars,  masts, 
pitch,  tar,  and  other  materials  for  ship  building,  from  the  colonies.  The 
only  justification  for  departing  from  this  policy  was  the  revenue  necessities 
occasioned  by  the  long  struggle  between  1793  and  18 15,  and  the  burden- 
some debt  which  hung  over  the  English  people  after  its-close.  The  advo- 
cates of  free  trade  have  constantly  paraded  before  the  world  this  feature 
of  the  tariff  laws  of  England  as  being  "  unjust,"  "arbitrary,"  "  burden- 
some ' '  and  ' '  unscientific, ' '  and  claim  great  credit  for  wiping  from  the 
statute  books  such  hindrances  to  English  industries.  Not  the  slightest 
credit  is  due  to  the  advocates  of  free  trade  in  England  for  placing  these 
articles  on  the  free  list,  because  before  the  Anti-Corn  Leag-ue  was  organized 
the  duties  imposed  on  them  had  been  reduced  to  a  minimum  by  protec- 
tionists, and  in  a  short  time  they  would  all  have  been  placed  on  the  free 
list.  During  the  great  rebellion  in  the  United  States  in  1861 ,  a  protectionist 
Congress  was  compelled  to  impose  taxes  on  this  class  of  articles,  to  provide 
for  the  expenses  of  the  government  in  carrying  on  the  war.  They  were 
known  as  "war  taxes."  As  soon,  however,  as  the  national  debt  was  in 
l)art  paid  off,  and  by  a  system  of  refunding  the  interest  account  was 
lessened,  these  articles  were  restored  to  the  free  list.  The  protectionists 
of  the  United  States  do  not  impose  duties  on  such  articles  of  raw  materials, 
as  have  been  described. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  free  trade  movement  in  England 
encountered  no  opposition  from  protectionists  in  the  legislation  which 
affected  the  two  classes  of  articles  above  named.     They  did  not  enter  into 

'  English  Tmik-  and  Finance,  p.  145. 


FKEE  TRADE  LEGIULATION. 


the  controversy  at  the  time.  The  duties  on  raw  materials  would  have  been 
repealed  if  a  free  trade  party  had  not  arisen  in  En;jland.  The  polic3'  of 
claiming  credit  for  everything  that  was  done  by  protectionist  parliaments, 
before  a  free  trade  organization  was  effected,  has  created  an  erroneous  im- 
pression as  to  the  facts  connected  with  the  legislation  which  preceded  the 
organization  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League. 

The  policy  of  protection  as  it  had  been  practiced  since  the  time  of 
Elizabeth  embraced  three  general  divisions,  as  follows  : 

1 .  Protection  to  domestic  industries. 

2.  Protection  to  shipping. 

3.  Protection  to  agriculture. 

As  we  have  already  shown,  the  principal  part,  if  not  all  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  England  had  become  so  efficient,  that  they  were  able  to  defy 
all  competitors  at  home  and  to  undersell  all  rivals  in  every  market  open 
to  the  free  admission  of  their  goods.  Not  only  this,  but  they  were  scaling 
the  tariff  walls  of  foreign  countries  and  invading  the  chief  industrial 
centres  of  the  world.  They  were  .selling  their  wares  at  the  very  doors  of 
the  factories  in  the  United  States,  and  on  the  Continent,  and  dividing  the 
market  with  native  producers  after  paying  a  duty  at  the  custom  house. 
In  considering  the  abilitj-  of  the  English  manufacturers  to  supplant  all 
rivals,  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  cotton,  woolen,  linen  and 
metal  industries,  in  which  their  supremacy  was  unquestioned,  and  those 
of  gloves,  boots  and  shoes,  silks,  and  a  few  others  which  were  still  carried 
on  in  part  by  hand  workmanship.  The  latter,  however,  were  in,significant 
when  compared  with  the  great  textile,  metal,  and  pottery  industries. 
Their  ability  to  hold  their  own  markets,  even  in  all  branches,  was  proven 
by  the  te.st  applied  between  1826  and  1846,  when  duties  were  reduced  to  a 
very  low  point.  Imports  did  not  increase  and  hence  it  was  demonstrated 
by  nearly  twenty  years  of  experience,  that  they  were  quite  independent  of 
foreign  competition  in  these  great  branches  of  production. 

Another  feature  of  the  policy  of  protection  to  home  industries,  is  found 
in  the  situation  of  those  raw  materials  produced  in  England.  The  iron 
mines  of  England  at  this  time  were  supposed  to  be  inexhaustible,  and  b}' 
their  nearness  to  the  coal  fields,  the  smelting  of  iron  ore  could  be  carried 
on  cheaper  than  in  any  other  place  in  the  world.  In  salt  mines  England 
also  had  a  supremac^^  With  lead,  copper  and  tin  so  accessible,  there  was 
no  necessity  for  any  protective  duties  on  raw  materials  for  the  metal  indus- 
tries. With  the  superior  and  abundant  supply  of  clay  for  her  potteries, 
none  need  be  imported.  In  these  raw  materials,  England  occupied  prac- 
tically the  same  position  as  the  United  States  now  holds  in  the  produc- 
tion of  cotton.  Another  element  of  great  importance  was  the  coal  mines. 
It  would  have  been  the  height  of  folly  for  England  to  impose  a  duty  on 
the  importation  of  coal,  when  she  was  prepared  almost  to  supply  the  world. 

The  necessity  for  continuing  duties  on  most  manufactured  goods,  had 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


practically  ceased.  It  is  therefore  absurd  to  say  that  the  duties  then 
imposed  on  those  manufactured  goods  were  a  burden  to  the  English  peo- 
ple. They  did  not  affect  the  price  of  a  single  article.  Their  manufac- 
turing supremacy  was  such,  that  an  entire  removal  of  those  duties  which 
had  been  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  protection  in  former  times  and 
under  different  conditions  would  scarcely  affect  the  volume  of  importation 
one  way  or  the  other,  because  under  free  trade  English  manufacturers 
would  still  hold  a  monopoly  of  their  own  market.  Free  trade  was  not 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  importations  of  this  character  or  of 
supplying  the  home  consumers  or  for  any  of  the  reasons  now  urged  by 
free  traders  to  induce  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  abandon  protec- 
tion. They  intended  only  to  enlarge  their  trade  by  an  exchange  of 
finished  goods  for  raw  materials  and  agricultural  products.  It  was  by 
importing  wheat,  rye,  barley,  meat,  and  other  farm  produce  in  payment 
for  cotton,  woolens,  linens,  metals,  etc.,  that  they  expected  to  enlarge 
their  trade. 

With  the  manufacturers  persistently  urging  a  repeal  of  those  duties 
which  had  formerly  been  imposed  for  the  protection  of  manufactures,  it  could 
hardly  be  expected  that  the  agriculturists,  ship  owners,  and  other  classes, 
would  raise  any  serious  objection.  That  there  was  not  the  slightest  fear  on 
the  part  of  the  manufacturers,  of  injurious  competition  at  home,  from  other 
countries,  and  that  they  were  demanding  a  repeal  of  protection  to  their  own 
industries,  is  shown  by  Mr.  Mongredien,  an  eminent  free  trade  authority, 
and  formerly  an  attache  of  the  Cobden  Club.  He  says,  •' '  True  these  Man- 
chester manufacturers  have  declared  over  and  over  again,  that  they  did 
not  want  for  themselves  any  protective  duties,  whatever.  That  they  dis- 
claimed and  repudiated  them. ' ' 

Disregarding  all  considerations  of  the  future,  ignoring  that  broad- 
minded  policy  which  for  centuries  had  guarded  and  fostered  every  de- 
partment of  industry,  looking  at  the  question  solely  in  the  light  of  present 
advantages  to  the  English  manufacturer,  the  commercial  classes  were  be- 
coming imbued  with  the  idea  that  they  could  safely  repeal  all  protective 
laws  and  embark  on  the  policy  of  free  trade.  The  external  forces  which 
were  operating  upon  the  industries  of  the  countrj',  the  loss  of  markets  by 
the  building  up  of  industries  under  protection  in  other  countries,  were  con- 
stantly pressing  home  to  the  manufacturers  and  shippers  the  advantage 
which  they  might  derive  from  foreign  trade. 

The  textile  manufacturers  had  become  settled  in  the  conviction  that 
the  only  means  by  which  they  could  get  into  the  best  markets  of  the  world, 
and  induce  other  countries  to  repeal  those  protective  laws  which  were 
standing  as  a  constant  hindrance  to  an  unlimited  expansion  of  their  trade 
was,  first,  by  abandoning  the  policy  of  protection,  and  then  by  proclaiming 
to  the  world  the  advantages  of  free  trade  as  a    policy  universal   in  its 

'  History  of  Free  Trade,  p.  33. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


application  and  advantageous  to  all  nations.  A  bold  and  comprehensive 
plan!  With  this  step  once  taken,  they  could  direct  the  energy-  and  intel- 
lectual forces  of  their  country-  to  a  denunciation  of  the  policy  of  protection, 
and  thus  bring  it  into  disrepute.  Pointing  to  their  own  example,  they 
could  herald  the  new  doctrine  as  one  having  the  approval  of  the  greatest 
commercial  nation  in  Christendom.  They  could  advocate  it  on  moral, 
political,  .scientific  or  other  grounds,  .suiting  their  arguments  to  the  condi- 
tions of  the  various  localities  of  the  world. 

They  well  knew  that  with  protective  tariffs  abandoned  in  other 
countries,  they  could  annihilate  every  industrial  rival  and  thus  perpetuate 
the  monopoly  of  markets,  which  their  vast  wealth,  superior  machinery 
and  the  efficiency  of  their  labor  would  enable  them  at  once  to  seize.  While 
they  could  easily  convert  the  shipping  interests  of  the  countrj.-  to  any 
policy  that  would  increase  the  carrying  trade ;  while  they  could  win  over 
all  people  living  on  fixed  incomes  and  foreign  investments  (and  this  was 
a  large  class),  to  a  policy  which  they  might  be  convinced  would  reduce 
the  price  of  agricultural  products  and  give  them  cheaper  food  ;  the  great 
body  which  stood  in  the  way  of  a  consummation  of  this  policy  was  the 
farmers. 

It  would  be  a  difficult  matter  to  convince  them  that  they  could 
compete  with  foreign  countries  under  free  competition.  The  soil  of  Eng- 
land was  most  productive.  It  had  been  one  of  the  chief  agricultural 
regions  of  Europe  for  centuries,  well  suited  to  the  growth  of  all  grains 
and  coarser  vegetables.  The  raising  of  sheep  and  cattle  had  been  an 
important  industrj-.  Agriculture  was  carried  on  like  every  other  branch 
of  business,  and  the  profits  derived  from  it  depended  upon  the  question 
of  the  investment  of  capital  and  employment  of  labor,  affected  onh'  by 
fa^-orable  or  unfavorable  seasons.  Agriculture  carried  on  under  these 
circumstances,  they  well  knew  could  not  compete  with  the  almo.st  spon- 
taneous productions  of  the  fertile  and  virgin  soils  of  new  countries.  Up 
to  1839  crops  had  been  good,  the  country  prosperous  and  ver>'  moderate 
prices  for  wheat  prevailed.  There  was  no  special  condition  favorable  to 
the  free  trade  agitator.  Waiting  for  a  time  of  distress,  looking  fonvard  to 
a  failure  of  crops  or  to  some  great  calamity  which  would  bring  misfortune 
to  the  people,  the  manufacturers  were  preparing  to  attack  the  agricultural 
interests  and  force  the  country  into  the  policy  of  free  trade.  Mongredien 
says:  "  The  very  abundant  harvest  of  1835  had  given  the  people  com- 
paratively cheap  bread,  and  the  voice  of  complaint  was  hushed  for  a 
time."  ' 

The  partial  failure  of  the  wheat  harvest  in  1838-39-40,  brought  to  free 
traders  the  very  opportunity  which  they  desired.  Other  circumstances  at 
this  time  also  favored  the  inauguration  of  a  free  trade  movement.  The 
Anti-Corn  Law  League,   in  its  history  of  the  causes  which  brought  the 


BETCBX  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


movement  into  existence,  in  speaking  of  the  fact  that  an  opportunity  liad 
arisen  for  decisive  action,  says  : 

Retaliatory  tariffs  had  been  established  by  Russia,  and  Sweden.  America  was 
about  to  do  the  same,  and  France,  to  use  the  language  of  Lord  Palmerston,  had  made 
every  article  of  produce  a  subject  of  protection,  down  to  needles  and  fish  hooks. 
(Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  May  17,  1841.J  While  these  circumstances  urged 
upon  our  Legislature  the  necessity  of  establishing  our  trade  upon  a  more  satis- 
factory footing,  the  present  time  seemed  to  offer  peculiar  facilities  for  making  the 
attempt.  Our  treaties  with  Brazil  were  on  the  point  of  expiring,  the  United  States 
were  about  to  reconsider  their  tariff  (1846),  and  the  Zollverein  would  be  open  in 
the  following  year,  on  discussing  the  question  of  its  renewal,  to  a  readjustment  of 
those  duties  which  pressed  so  heavily  on  British  manufacturers. ' 

The  loss  of  trade  occasioned  by  protective  regulations  in  other  coun- 
tries was  a  constant  subject  of  discussion  and  alarm.  On  this  subject  Mr. 
Yeats  says  : 

Indeed,  the  rivalry  of  France,  Germany  and  Belgium,  all  of  which  coun- 
tries produce  excellent  cloths,  and  the  improvements  in  foreign  machinerj-,  so 
prejudiced  our  export  woolen  trade,  that  it  seemed  tjo  be  in  a  fair  way  of  disappear- 
ing. From  1820  to  1840  our  exports  to  Germany  were  reduced  by  a  third;  to  Hol- 
land, by  more  than  a  half;  to  distant  parts — India,  China  and  America,  the  quantity 
sent  out  at  the  best  did  not  increase,  while  to  Russia  the  diminution  was  very 
remarkable.  Thus,  the  number  of  pieces  of  woolen  cloths  and  fabricssent  to  Russia 
from  England  in  the  decennial  intervals  ending  in  1820,  1830  and  1840,  were 
respectively  31,824,  7415  and  1680.2 

Again,  in  speaking  of  the  influence  of  the  Zollverein  on  their  cotton 
industry,  Mr.  Yeats  says  : 

Germany,  with  the  aid  of  English  machiner}',  advanced  in  manufacturing  skill, 
and  consequently  took  less  of  our  industrial  products.  Cotton  fabrics  exported  to 
Germany  sunk  in  value  from  /'4,soo,ooo  in  1S20,  to  ^1,500,000  in  1838.  Yarn,  on 
the  contrary,  in  the  spinning  of  which  Germany  has  not  yet  been  able  to  compete 
with  England,  was  sent  in  constantly  increasing  quantities,  the  value  rising  to 
/2, 500,000.' 

The  reasons  which  made  it  necessary  for  the  English  manufacttirers 
to  act  were  j-early  growing  more  urgent.  As  factories  were  built  in 
foreign  countries  the  infltiences  favorable  to  protection  were  increased  ;  as 
employment  was  given  to  labor,  as  flourishing  and  prosperous  industrial 
centres  arose,  the  people  would  be  convinced  of  its  advantages,  and  it 
would  become  more  deeply  rooted  and  difficult  to  overthrow.  While  the 
duties  then  on  the  statute  books  in  Great  Britain  had  become  so  low,  with 
the  exception,  perhaps,  of  duties  on  agricultural  products,  that  they  were 
not  felt  as  a  burden,  yet  the  manufacturers  desired,  above  all,  to  increase 
their  foreign  exchanges  by  trading  their  maiutfactured  goods  for  agricul- 
tural  products.       The    establishment   of    manufactures    in    agricultural 


N.itioiis,  pp,  50  and  51 


Existing  Comineri 


FEEE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


countries  was  what  they  desired  to  prevent,  if  possible.  While  continu 
ing  the  agricultural  interests  of  their  own  country,  they  were  powerless 
to  engage  largely  in  trade  with  such  countries.  By  agreeing  to  purchase 
agricultural  products  in  payment  for  manufactured  goods,  they  would 
offer  an  inducement  to  other  countries  to  abandon  manufacturing  and 
trade  with  them.  England  could  easily  get  rid  of  her  duties  on  manufac- 
tiu'ed  goods.  The  remaining  duties  on  raw  materials  were,  in  any  event, 
sure  to  be  repealed  within  a  short  time.  The  only  obstacle  which  stood 
in  the  way  of  the  consummation  of  their  plan  was  the  Corn  lyaws.' 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  in  1838  Dr.  Bowring,  while 
passing  through  Manchester,  was  invited  to  attend  a  meeting  which  had 
been  called  by  "  a  private  circular  issued  by  Mr.  Prentice,  the  originator 
of  the  idea,  to  about  one  hundred  gentlemen."  Mr.  Mongredien,  in  his 
"  Historj'  of  Free  Trade,"  says  that  about  sixtj'  persons  responded  to 
this  call.  One  familiar  with  the  situation  of  English  industries,  the  pur- 
pose they  had  in  view,  and  all  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  first 
steps  in  this  movement,  can  well  imagine  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Bowring 
in  his  address  to  these  gentlemen  on  that  occasion.  He  had  just  returned 
from  an  official  visit  to  the  Continent,  investigating  the  effect  of  the  tariffs 
of  Germany  and  other  countries  on  English  trade.  The  plan  of  getting 
rid  of  protection  in  other  countries  was  undoubtedly  the  theme  of  his 
speech.  Mr.  Mongredien  says  :  ' '  Dr.  Bowring  addressed  them  in  an 
interesting  speech,  in  which  he  vehementlj'  denounced  the  Corn  Laws." 
It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  outcry  on  the  part  of  the  manufac- 
turers against  the  duties  then  in  force  upon  raw  materials,  nor  that  the 
moderate  rates  on  manufactured  articles  occasioned  any  complaint.  It 
was  the  Com  Laws  that  were  made  the  bugbear  to  frighten  the  timid  and 
mislead  the  ignorant.  It  was  a  most  cunningly  devised  scheme  to  attack 
the  landowners  and  to  arouse  the  prejudice  of  the  people  against  an 
aristocracy  which  was  not  popular  in  the  realm. 

About  the  tenth  of  January,  1839,  an  organization  known  as  the  Anti- 
Corn  Law  League  was  perfected  in  the  city  of  Manchester.  The  purpose 
of  this  organization  was  to  procure  if  possible,  the  repeal  of  all  duties  on 
agricultural  products.  In  the  same  month  a  monster  demonstration  was 
held  in  the  city  of  Manchester,  and  a  movement  was  set  on  foot  which  in  a 
short  time  revolutionized  the  industrial  policy  of  the  countrj'.  The  lead- 
ing central  body  was  located  in  the  great  cotton  manufacturing  city  of  Man- 
chester, in  the  very  midst  of  the  vast  textile  industries  of  the  country. 
The  perfection  of  the  organization,  the  persistency  of  its  efforts  and  the 
unscrupulous  means  resorted  to  in  everj-  part  of  the  realm,  together  with 
the  vast  amount  of  wealth  possessed  by  its  members,  made  it  the  most 
powerful  political  combination  ever  brought  to  bear  upon  English  politics. 
Committees  were  appointed  to  look  after  the  most  minute  details  of  the 

1  Duties  on  wheat,  oats,  rye.  barley  and  other  farm  produce. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


work,  and  nothing  was  left  undone  to  reach  and  influence  everj-  class  of 
society.  Branch  organizations  were  formed  in  everj-  part  of  the  countrj-, 
and  channels  were  thus  opened  for  the  distribution  of  literature,  the 
organization  of  meetings,  and  the  carrying  on  of  the  agitation.  Richard 
Cobden  and  John  Bright,  both  manufacturers,  were  among  the  prime 
movers.  They  acquired  more  notoriety  and  distinction  by  their  efforts 
than  any  others  connected  with  the  movement.  Bright  was  aggressive, 
insolent,  and  abusive  in  his  treatment  of  adversaries.  One  of  the  ablest 
speakers  in  England,  he  remained  a  prominent  character  in  English  poli- 
tics until  the  close  of  his  life.  Bright  has  left  a  career  unblemished  by 
inconsistencies  or  acts  of  deception.  He  was  bold  and  aggressive,  and, 
although  radically  wrong,  his  personal  interests  in  free  trade,  as  a  cotton 
manufacturer,  blinded  and  warped  his  judgment  and  unfitted  him  to  formu- 
late a  commercial  policy  suited  to  the  varied  interests  of  the  countrj-. 
Richard  Cobden  became  the  idol  of  the  manufacturers.  His  name  has 
been  associated  with  the  cause  more  than  that  of  any  other  man.  He  was 
an  ardent  free  trader  and  had  advocated  the  free  trade  policy  before  the 
Anti-Corn  Law  League  was  organized.  After  the  protective  legislation  of 
England  had  been  repealed,  he  devoted  his  time  and  energies  to  influ- 
encing other  countries  to  follow  the  example  set  by  England.  He  visited 
all  Continental  countries,  held  consultations  with  emperors,  statesmen, 
and  public  men,  in  which  he  explained  in  his  most  fascinating  and  con- 
vincing manner  the  wonderful  advantages  of  the  new  faith.  This  of 
course  was  the  great  ultimate  purpose  which  the  English  manufacturers 
had  in  view.  The  repeal  of  their  own  protective  laws  was  simply  a  means 
to  an  end  ;  that  end  was  universal  free  trade.  Partial  free  trade,  simplj- 
the  opening  of  their  own  ports  to  the  free  admission  of  the  products  of 
other  countries,  making  their  own  country  the  dumping  ground  for  the 
surplus  products  of  the  Continent  (which  is  all  they  have  accomplished) 
was  not  the  kind  of  free  trade  they  were  .struggling  for.  Free  trade  with 
them  meant  freedom  to  enter  the  markets  of  other  countries. 

It  was  to  procure  this  that  Richard  Cobden  devoted  the  latter  part  of 
his  life.  While  Cobden  was  a  shrewd  and  able  debater,  and  understood 
the  question  at  issue  in  all  its  bearings,  better  than  any  other  Englishman, 
he  is  not  entitled  to  the  place  in  history  which  he  occupies.  Cobden  was 
a  thorough-going  politician.  He  was  a  business  man  with  but  few  ele- 
ments of  a  statesman.  As  a  prophet  he  was  an  absolute  failure.  He 
formed  an  entirely  erroneous  estimate  of  the  patriotism  and  ability  of  the 
.statesmen  of  other  countries.  He  had  no  sympathy  with  the  laboriuL; 
population.  His  judgment  entirely  failed  as  to  the  practical  operation 
and  effect  of  free  competition  when  applied  to  the  industries  of  his  own 
country.  He  understood  full  well,  however,  the  advantages  which  Eng- 
lish manufacturers  then  held  over  all  rivals  and  the  temporary  benefits 
they  would  derive  from  having  foreign  markets  opened  to  the  free  admission 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


of  their  wares.  While  he  well  understood  the  material  benefits  to  be 
derived  from  cheapness,  as  he  termed  it,  that  is,  that  the  unlimited  exten- 
sion of  English  commerce  rested  on  their  ability  to  undersell  all  competitors, 
he  entirely  lost  sight  of  the  degradation  and  misery  to  which  commer- 
cial supremacy  resting  upon  that  basis,  would  necessarily  reduce  the 
great  mass  of  laborers  and  artisans  of  his  own  country.  Such  a  concep- 
tion of  human  affairs  can  hardly  fit  a  man  for  statesmanship.  The  true 
statesman  must  formulate  his  policy  Upon  something  besides  the  cash 
basis. 

The  recent  discussion  that  has  arisen  in  England  on  the  tariff  ques- 
tion has  brought  to  light  many  addresses  made  by  Richard  Cobden  in  his 
appeals  to  the  farmers,  which  are  so  inconsistent  with  speeches  which  he 
delivered  in  parliament  after  election,  and  to  manufacturing  centres,  that 
his  reputation  as  a  moralist  has  greatly  suffered.  He  is  described  by  the 
Cobden  Club  in  the  following  poetical  strain: 

"Pure-hearted  hero  of  a  bloodless  fight ! 
Clean-handed  captain  in  a  painless  war  !" 

The  effort  to  vest  his  character  with  the  wisdom  of  a  statesman  and 
the  virtue  of  a  saint,  has  somewhat  failed  in  England,  where  he  was  best 
known.  He  participated  in  all  the  misrepresentations  and  frauds  that 
were  practiced  on  the  tenant  farmers  of  England  to  procure  their  votes  in 
the  election  of  1841,  and  to  obtain  their  assistance,  or  to  allay  their  active 
opposition,  while  he  was  seeking  to  influence  parliament  to  repeal  the  Corn 
Laws.  The  deceptions  practiced  on  the  agriculturist  by  the  Anti-Corn 
Law  League,  forms  one  of  the  most  disgraceful  chapters  of  English 
history. 

An  amusing  incident  occurred  when  the  demands  which  had  been 
formulated  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  were  first  brought  before  par- 
liament. A  committee  was  appointed  to  appear  at  the  bar  of  the  House 
of  Commons  and  ask  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  A  monster  petition 
had  been  prepared,  which  set  forth  the  alleged  evils  of  protection,  and 
gave  a  most  gloomy  description  of  the  condition  of  the  trade  and  commerce 
of  the  country.  That  the  condition  of  affairs  claimed  by  the  petitioners 
was  a  surprise  to  parliament  is  shown  by  what  followed.  Mr.  Wood 
president  of  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce,  was  then  member 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  on  behalf  of  his  constituents  presented 
the  petition  to  the  House.  The  honor  was  also  conferred  upon  Mr.  Wood 
of  seconding  the  Queen's  address.  He  had  either  not  read  the  petition  of 
his  constituents  or  had  not  been  told  what  the  keynote  of  the  League  was 
to  be.  In  moving  the  endorsement  of  the  address  from  the  throne,  he 
gave  a  most  glowing  description  of  the  prosperity  of  the  industries  of  the 
country,  to  the  disappointment  and  chagrin  of  the  members  of  the  free 
trade  league,   who  were  present.     It  is  hardly  necessarj-  to  say  that  this 


Cobden's 
true  states- 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


breach  of  free  trade  etiquette  cost  him  his  head,  and  he  lost  his  place  as 
president  of  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce.'  It  is  hardly  neces- 
sarj'  to  inquire  which  was  the  most  truthful,  the  petition  or  Mr.  Wood's 
speech.  It  is  a  significant  fact,  however,  that  the  Corn  Laws  were  not 
mentioned  by  the  Queen  in  her  communication  to  the  law-makers  of  the 
realm.  In  fact,  the  only  necessity  for  alarm  at  that  time  was  the  one 
being  created  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League.  The  petition  presented  was 
ignored  by  parliament. 

In  June,  1841,  parliament  was  brought  to  a  sudden  clase.  A  motion 
of  want  of  confidence  in  the  ministry  was  carried  by  312  against  311  votes.' 
A  dissolution  followed  and  an  election  was  immediately  held.  Sir  Robert 
Peel,  an  avowed  protectionist  at  this  time,  had  triumphed  over  the 
ministry,  and  a  new  election  was  held  without  a  direct  appeal  to  the 
countrjf  upon  the  tariff  question  by  either  the  Whigs  or  the  Conservatives. 
Yet  during  the  election  which  followed,  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  waged 
a  vigorous  campaign  to  procure  the  election  of  members  of  parliament 
who  would  favor  free  trade,  but  their  efforts  were  only  in  part  rewarded, 
there  being  only  about  one  hundred  free  traders  elected. 

The  election  of  1841  was  a  disappointment  to  the  Anti-Corn  Law 
League.  The  course  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  aften\'ards  Prime  Minister, 
and  of  Mr.  Gladstone  and  other  influential  statesmen,  in  still  adhering 
to  protection,  stood  in  the  way  of  a  consummation  of  the  Manchester 
plan.  Sir  Robert  Peel  had  been  elected  by  protectionists,  and  every  tie 
which  binds  honorable  men  to  their  constituents,  required  a  devotion 
on  his  part  to  those  principles  which  had  won  him  the  confidence  and 
support  of  his  people.  A  further  revision  of  the  tariff,  however,  was 
within  the  purpose  of  those  men  who  still  adhered  to  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection and  opposed  the  doctrine  of  free  trade.  It  could  be  made  upon  the 
lines  which  had  been  followed  by  protectionists  for  over  twenty  years.  The 
sliding  scale  of  duties  on  corn,  which  was  adopted  in  1826,  was  still  in 
force.  The  experience  during  the  seasons  of  good  crops  had  shown  that 
the  duties  were  higher  than  the  farmers  required,  to  afford  them  ample 
protection  in  times  of  abundance  and  low  prices.  The  experience  had 
also  demonstrated  that  the  duties  were  higher  than  justice  and  fairness 
would  permit  during  the  seasons  of  deficient  harve.sts  and  high  prices. 
It  was  within  the  plan  to  revise  the  Corn  Laws  and  still  further  reduce  the 
duties  on  manufactured  goods  and  raw  materials,  and  make  further  pro- 
visions for  the  imposition  of  direct  taxes.  Accordingly,  on  the  ninth  of 
February,  Sir  Robert  Peel  introduced  tlie  famous  measure  known  as  tlie 
Act  of  1 842  for  a  revision  of  the  Corn  Laws.  It  permitted  the  importation 
of  wheat  with  a  duty  of  fifty  cents  per  bushel  when  the  price  was  $1.50  ; 
as  prices  advanced  the  duty  was  reduced,  being  fixed  at  thirty-three  cents 
a  bushel  when  the  price  was  between  $1.83  and  $1.86  a  bushel ;  falling  to 

>  Mougredieu's  History  of  Free  Trade,  p.  23. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


\ 


twelve  cents  when  the  price  was  between  $2.10  and  $2.13  a  bushel ;  and 
to  six  cents  a  bushel  when  the  price  had  reached  $2.19  a  bushel.  Con- 
sidering the  crude  means  of  cultivation  and  harvesting  which  then  pre- 
vailed, $1.50  was  a  price  which  was  conceded  at  the  time  to  be  fair  and 
reasonable.  While  a  duty  of  Miy  cents  a  bushel  was  in  its  effect  in  most 
years  almost  prohibitory-,  it  secured  to  the  English  farmers  their  home 
market,  without  interfering  with  the  general  current  price  in  the  country. 
Notwithstanding  the  very  reasonable  and  moderate  provisions  proposed  by 
this  measure,  the  Anti-Corn  I,aw  League  was  vigorous  and  unsparing  in 
its  denunciation.  The  league  demanded  a  removal  of  all  duties  and  the 
establishment  of  free  trade  in  all  agricultural  products.  While  the  meas- 
ure was  pending  before  parliament  the  free  traders  were  active  in  holding 
meetings  in  the  chief  manufacturing  towns,  for  the  purpose  of  denouncing 
the  bill.  Lord  John  Russell,  Lord  Palmerston  and  Mr.  Villiers  favored 
absolute  repeal.  They  were,  of  course,  supported  by  Mr.  Cobden,  who 
was  elected  to  parliament  in  1841.  The  first  move  on  the  part  of  the  free 
trade  opposition  was  taken  on  the  fourteenth  of  Februarj-,  when  Lord  John 
Russell  offered  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  to  the  effect  that  the  House  was 
not  prepared  for  its  adoption.  This  amendment  was  lost  by  a  majority  of 
123.  A  few  days  later  an  amendment  was  offered  by  Mr.  Villiers,  for  the 
absolute  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  It  was  upon  this  proposition  that  Mr 
Cobden  first  distinguished  himself  in  parliament  as  a  debater.  After  a 
spirited  discussion  the  amendment  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  393  against, 
and  only  90  for  the  proposition,  showing  a  majority  of  303  protectionists 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  bill,  as  proposed  by  Peel,  finally  passed 
both  Houses  and  became  a  law  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  April,  1842. 

The  next  step  taken  by  the  Prime  Minister  was  the  introduction  of  a 
bill  imposing  an  income  tax.  The  constant  and  steady  revisions  of  the 
tariff  which  had  occurred  since  181 5,  so  reduced  the  receipts  of  the  govern- 
ment as  to  cause  a  deficiency  of  $12,500,000.  The  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment, involving  as  they  did  the  interest  on  the  national  debt,  were  so  enor- 
mous that  any  species  of  taxation,  direct  or  indirect,  was  necessarily  high 
and  burdensome.  The  duties  on  imports  had  been  so  reduced  by  former 
parliaments  that  nearly  the  whole  of  the  customs  revenues  was  being 
collected  upon  eighteen  out  of  over  eleven  hundred  articles  subjected  to 
duties.  Further  steps  could  not  be  taken  without  devising  new  means  of 
taxation.  The  income  tax  imposed  by  Mr.  Pitt  to  provide  for  the  Napo- 
leonic wars  had  been  repealed  at  its  close.  A  return  to  that  system  of 
direct  taxation,  which  was  regarded  as  a  species  of  war  taxes,  was  verj- 
distasteful  to  many  members  of  parliament,  yet  the  necessities  of  the 
situation  procured  sufficient  votes  for  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

The  next  measure  embraced  within  the  legislation  of  this  year  was 
now  introduced  by  Sir  Robert  Peel.  It  was  the  famous  measure  for 
the  modification  of  the  customs  tariffs.     It  reduced  the  duties  on  seven 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


hundred  and  fifty  articles,  leaving  four  hundred  untouched.  The  reductions 
made  in  the  duties  on  raw  materials  were  approved  by  the  manufacturers, 
while  the  duties  on  manufactured  goods  were  left  high  enough  to  afford 
ample  protection  to  the  few  industries  which  might  possibly  suffer  from 
foreigu  competition.  The  prohibition  was  removed  from  the  importation 
of  cattle,  and  they  were  subjected  to  a  duty  which  afforded^  ample  protec- 
tion to  the  agriculturist.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  this  legislation  was 
the  work  of  a  protectionist  parliament,  carried  against  the  opposition  and 
votes  of  the  ninety  free  traders  who  sat  in  the  body.  It  preserved  all 
the  essential  principles  of  protective  tariffs.  Everj'  industry  and  interest 
was  considered  and  guarded.  Mr.  Gladstone  participated  in  the  debates, 
and  earnestly  and  ably  advocated  protection  to  agriculture.  Speaking  on 
the  bill  for  the  revision  of  the  Corn  Laws  in  1842,  he  said  : 

The  agricultural  intere.sts  have  a  demand  for  protection  on  two  grounds. 
These  grounds  are:  First,  the  peculiar  burdens  upon  the  land.  Secondlj',  the 
immense  investments  which  have  taken  place  under  the  present  system  (i.  e.,  before 
the  repeal),  and  which  would  be  seriously  affected  by  the  sudden  and  violent 
change. 

Those  circumstances  convinced  him  that  they  must  be  prepared  to  have  a  cer- 
tain quantity  of  corn  always  disposable  in  the  foreign  markets,  at  what  might  be 
called  an  unnaturally  low  price ;  and  that  it  was  against  those  unnaturally  low  prices 
that  the  agriculturists  of  this  countrj-,  so  far  as  a  system  of  protection  could  be 
reasonable  at  any  time,  claimed  with  reason  to  have  it  applied.  ■ 

But  we  must  surely  proceed  with  a  due  regard  to  our  industry  and  interests, 
both  at  home  and  abroad;  and  it  would  be  absurd  indeed  if  we  were  to  regulate  our 
trade  so  as  to  leave  ourselves  altogether  at  the  mercy  of  the  policy  or  of  the  impolicy 
of  the  countries  with  which  we  trade.' 

He  contended,  therefore,  however  desirable  it  might  be  in  the  abstract  to  buy 
cheap,  that  those  principles  were  not  to  take  effect,  and  should  not  take  effect 
without  a  careful  examination  having  first  been  made  of  the  result  they  would  be 
likely  to  produce  in  the  displacement  of  labor,  and  interfering  with  the  course  of 
the  investment  of  a  capital  of  trade  and  the  exchanges.  ^ 

He  did  not  wish  to  ca.st  a  stigma  upon  the  principle  of  political  economy,  but 
he  felt  called  upon  to  object  to  the  strict  application  of  a  principle,  when  circum- 
stances were  greatly  modified  and  restricted.* 

That  the  principles  of  protection  were  fully  upheld  by  the  Act  of 
1842  is  shown  by  Mr.  Gladstone  in  his  "Recent  Commercial  Legislation,"  ^ 
in  which  he  said: 

It  was  an  attempt  to  make  a  general  approach  to  the  following  rules: 

First,  the  removal  of  prohibitions. 

Secondly,  the  reduction  of  duties  on  manufactured  articles,  and  of  protective 
duties  generally  to  an  average  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Thirdly,  on  partly  manufactured   articles,  to  rates  not  exceeding  10  per  cent. 

Fourthly,  on  raw  materials,  to  rates  not  exceeding  5  per  cent. 
Substantially  the  .same  views  were  expressed  by  Sir  Robert  Peel,  in 
his  speech  on  the  introduction  of  the  measure.* 

I  Hansard,  Vol.  60,  p.  375,  Kch.  14,  1S42,  "-  Hnnsard,  Vol.  66,  p.  .sog,  Feb.  13,  1.S43.  ^Hans.Trd, 
Vol.  1.8,  p.  922,  April  25,  1843-  <  Hiinsara,  Vol  b;,  p.  127J.  l-'i-'l'-  -'6,  1845-  »P. -'g-  «  Hausarcl,  Vol. 
63,  3d  .series,  p.  353. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


The  requirements  of  the  government  made  it  necessary  that  reduction 
of  duties  and  changes  which  would  lessen  its  income  should  be  cautiously 
made.  The  requirements  were  so  large,  that  revenue  from  one  source  could 
not  be  surrendered  until  it  was  replaced  by  taxes  levied  on  something 
else.  Neither  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League 
nor  after  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  1842  was  there  any  necessity  for  tariff 
agitation  for  the  removal  of  burdens  on  English  industries.  The  follow- 
ing statement  shows  the  situation  of  tariff  laws  at  this  time: 

The  custom  house  accounts  exhibited  in  1842  a  list  of  one  hundred  and  ninety 
articles  upon  which  duties  were  levied,  independent  of  such  as  were  not  considered 
worth  enumerating,  but  were  described  as  "all  other  articles,"  and  the  duties  upon 
which,  in  that  year,  amounted  to  $366,755.'  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  out  of  this  long 
array  of  substances  the  net  produce  of  the  duties  upon  which  amounted,  in  1840  to 
$116,709,065,  the  large  proportion  of  93  1-5  per  cent,  or  1109,362,540  was  collected 
upon  eighteen  articles,  as  shown  in  the  following  list.  By  extending  the  list  so  as 
to  comprise  all  articles  which  yield  annually  $50,000  and  upward,  it  will  be  found 
to  comprehend,  altogether,  only  forty-five  articles,  yielding  fii3,7i3j005,  or  97;'< 
per  cent  of  the  whole,  leaving  one  hundred  and  fortj^-five  articles  besides  all  those 
unenumerated,  and  which  yielded  $2,996,060,  or  2|<  per  cent  of  the  produce." 

Eighteen  articles  from  which  93  1-5  percent  of  the  revenue  was 
collected  in  1840: 


Tea, $17,364,320 

Sugar  and  molasses, 23,250,080 

Tobacco, 17,940,960 

British  plantation  and 

foreign  spirits 12,204,710 

Wine, 8,958,230 

Timber, 8,657,745 

Coffee, 4,607,750 

Cotton   wool, 3,244,685 

Butter, 1,287,880 

Forty-five  articles  yielding  973-2 

Pepper $352,965 

Dj'e  and  hard  woods 336,520 

Turpentine 425,970 

Oils, 439,345 

Lemons  and    oranges 314,070 

Hides, 207,210 

Furs, 104,570 

Iron, 109,095 

Indigo, 199,125 

Licorice  juice, 132,670 

Leather  gloves, 141,505 

Rice, 123,050 

Bark 103,755 


Tallow, $931,415 

Silk  manufactured  goods,  .    .  1,203,135 

Currants, 1,007,885 

Sheep's  wool, 663,445 

Corn 5,783,195 

Raisins, 691,015 

Seeds, 977, 705 

Cheese, 588,385 


171, 


Bristles, 145,605 

Cork  wood, 123,975 

1  The  figures  given  are  reduced  to  United  States  money. 
2  Porter's  Progress  of  the  Nation,  pp.  498-9.       3  id.,  p.  498.       * 


'$109,362,540 

per  cent  of  the  revenue: 

Platting  for  hats $59,500 

Skins 95.130 

Woolen  manufactures, 103,075 

Glass 115,240 

Raw  and  waste  silk, 88,290 

Linen 68,560 

Nuts, 69,370 

Nutmegs, 75 

Brimstone, 55,990 

Madder  and  madder  roots,  .    .    .  84,090 

Cocoa, 104,720 

$4,350,465 
Eighteen  articles  named 

above 109,362,540 


Total  of  forty -five  articles,  .  *  $113,713,005 
ite  of  $5  to  a  pound  sterling. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


A  similar  examination  of  the  custom  house  accounts  for  1849  shows  the 
following  result  of  these  important  changes,  viz.,  that  upon  twelve  articles 
yielding  each  more  than  $500,000  the  revenue  has  amounted  to  95^2  per 
cent  of  the  whole;  that  upon  fourteen  articles,  yielding  each  between  $50,000 
and  $500,000,  the  proportion  was  beyond  2>4  per  cent,  while  all  other 
articles,  the  revenue  from  each  of  which  was  less  than  $50,000,  yielded 

than  2  percent  of  the  jearly  amount,  which,  notwithstanding  the 
abolition  and  reduction  of  duties  since  1840  to  the  extent  of  $37,398,425 
or  32.88  per  cent,  yielded  in  1849  within  $2,368,690,  or  about  2  per  cent 
(2.08)  of  the  revenue  of  1840. 

Twelve  articles  above  $500,000  per  annum  :  ' 

Butter $689,220  1  Sugar  and  molasses,    $20,632,520 

Coffee,      3,114,175   I  Tea, 27,357,100 

Corn 2,807,405   j  Tobacco, 22,040,090 

Currants 1,705,110   j  Wine, 8,837,580 

Raisins, 758,840  '  Timber 3,092,275 

Silk  goods 1,267,235   I  

Colonial  and  foreign  1106,383,945  or  95.54  per  cent, 

spirits, 14,082,395   1 

Fourteen  articles  between  $50,000  and  $500,000  : 


Cheese, 

1484,285 

Rice, 

182,330 

Leather  gloves,  .    .    . 

220,100 

Clover  seed,  .  . 

206,655 

Cocoa, 

88,375 

Tallow 

473-095 

Eggs 

178,230 

Embroidery,     .... 

61,505 

12,912,500  or  2.62  per  cent. 

Figs, 

119.155 

106,383,945 

Flowers,  artificial,  .    . 

65,230 



Nutmegs, 

90,580 

Articles, 

$109,296,445 

Nuts 

91,930 

under  150,000 

2,047,870  or  1.84  per  cent 

Oranges    and  lemons. 

323,395 



Pepper 

427,635 

$111,344,315 

Further  analysis  of  the  legislation  in  question  was  made  by  Mr.  Edwin 
Williams,  in  Fisher's  National  Magazine,  of  September  1846,  as  follows  : " 
The  following  statements  show  the  net  annual  produce  of  the  duties  of  customs  on 
all  articles  imported  into  the  United  Kingdom  in  the  two  years  which  preceded  the 
alterations  in  the  tariff  made  in  1842,  and  in  the  two  years  after  these  changes  were 
effected : 


Articles  on  which  the  Duties 
were  reduced  in  1S42-43-44. 

Articles  on  which  no  altera- 
tion was  made  in  1842-43-44. 

Two 
years  before. 

Two 
years  after. 

Two 
years  before. 

Two 
years  after. 

Raw  materials  for  manufacture, 
Articles  partially  manufactured, 
Articles  wholly  manufactured,  . 

$6,737,995 

5241.715 
796,490 

$2,586,215 

3,240,525 

705,920 

$4,237,405 

14,430 

1,601,360 

f4.487.990 

19,415 

1,672,705 

corn  or  grain,              .... 

Articles   not   belonging   to   the 

preceding  heads 

Totals, 

5,412,210 

■  1,067,885 

19.256,295 

5,404.960 

454,360 

12,391,980 

84,667,325 

89.240,800 

52,105 
90,572,625 

57,040 
99,974,450 

1  Progress  of  the  Nation,  p.  499.       «  Taken  from  Colton's  Public  Kcouoniy,  p. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION 


It  will  be  observed  that  the  annual  reduction  of  duty  on  raw  materials  for  man- 
ufactures amounted  to  ^830,356  ($4, 151,780),  and  on  articles  partially  manufactured 
to  /,"4oo,238  (|2, 001, 190), making  the  annual  boon  to  the  manufacturers  ^1,230,594, 
equal  to  16,152,970;  while  the  reduction  of  duties  on  manufactured  articles  imported 
was  only  ;fi8, 114  (feo,57o),  and  on  all  other  articles  the  reduction  was  only  /'124,- 
155  (|620,775).  At  the  same  time  the  amount  of  revenue  on  articles  in  which  no 
alteration  was  made  in  the  tariff  in  1842-3-4,  was  actually  increased  jfr, 880,365 
(;j9,4oi, 825.00),  while  the  total  amount  of  reductions  on  articles  on  which  the  tariff 
was  altered,  was  ^^i, 372,863  (16,864,315).  This  shows  that  the  increase  of  the 
revenue  on  the  unchanged  articles  exceeds  the  reduction  on  other  articles  by  the 
sum  of  ^^507,502  (|2,537,5io). 

By  the  new  British  tariff  adopted  at  the  present  session  of  Parliament  (1846), 
further  reduction  and  repeal  of  duties  on  articles  imported  have  been  made ;  the 
government  still  pursuing  the  policy  which  has  guided  it  in  all  the  changes  in  the 
tariff  referred  to,  namely,  promoting  the  interests  of  the  manufacturing  classes. 
Thus,  raw  hides,  mahogany,  and  other  woods  for  manufacture,  vegetables  and  a  few 
other  articles,  are  now  added  to  the  free  list,  while  animals,  beef,  pork,  and  some 
other  articles  of  food,  being  also  admitted  free  of  duty,  the  expenses  of  living  are, 
of  course,  reduced  to  the  manufacturer;  add  to  this  the  reduction  of  duties  on  bread- 
stuffs,  by  the  change  in  the  Corn  Laws,  and  we  can  estimate  in  some  degree  the 
amount  of  benefits  which  are  expected  to  be  derived  by  the  British  manufacturer  by 
the  recent  legislation  of  Parliament,  and  the  increased  advantages  those  manu- 
facturers will  have  in  contending  with  foreign  rivals  for  the  markets  of  the  world. 

It  is  true  that  the  new  British  tariff  has  reduced  the  rates  of  duties  levied  on 
the  manufactures  of  other  nations  when  imported  into  the  United  Kingdom.  British 
statesmen  know  that  they  may  safely  rely  on  the  capital  and  skill  acquired  during 
long  periods  of  protection,  against  any  attempts  that  may  be  made  by  their  manu- 
facturing rivals  of  other  countries  to  introduce  the  products  of  their  industry  into 
Great  Britain.  In  1839,  the  duties  received  on  manufactured  articles  imported  into 
the  United  Kingdom,  amounted  to  only  .^£^443, 355  (jf2,2i6, 775),  of  which  silk  goods 
imported  contributed  more  than  one-half.  Two  years  after  the  alteration  of  the 
tariff  of  1842-3-4,  the  annual  amount  of  duties  on  manufactures  imported  was  ^'475, - 
525  (12,377,625);  which  shows  but  a  small  increase  of  imports  in  consequence  of 
the  reduction  of  duties.  The  duties  on  silk  manufactures,  in  1839,  amounted  to 
^£■247, 361  ($1,236,805),  and  in  1844  to  ^286,535  ($1,432,675),  being  about  two-thirds 
of  all  the  duties  collected  from  manufactured  articles  from  foreign  parts.' 

Sir  Robert  Peel,  Mr.  Gladstone,  Disraeli,  Lord  Derby,  and  the  most 
influential  statesmen  in  the  realm,  were  still  devoted  to  the  cause  of  pro- 
tection. The  legislation  which  had  just  been  effected,  instead  of  aiding 
the  advancement  of  free  trade,  had  placed  obstacles  in  its  way.  The 
duties  on  raw  materials  had  been  reduced  so  low  that  no  complaint  could 
be  raised  against  then  as  ' '  burdens  on  industries. ' '  The  duties  on 
manufactured  goods  were  high  enough  to  afford  ample  protection  to  the 
few  industries  which  might  possibly  suffer  from  foreign  imports,  and  yet, 
with  the  exception  of  the  duties  on  silks,  their  removal  would  not 
materially  affect  imports.  The  duties  on  agricultural  products  were 
reduced  to  a  point  which  afforded  sufficient  protection  to  the  farmers, 
while  there  was  no  danger  that  prices  would  be  materially  affected  thereby 
in   time   of   scarcity    arising    from   crop    failures.      With    this   situation 

1  Publi 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

confronting  the  English  people,  a  continuation  of  the  free  trade  movement 
could  not  be  conducted  under  a  plea  of  "barbarous,"  "excessive,"  or 
"  burdensome  "  duties.  This  forced  the  Anti-Corn  L,aw  League  definitely 
to  take  the  position,  that  all  protective  duties,  however  insignificant, 
should  be  repealed.  It  forced  them  to  assert  openly  the  doctrines  of  free 
trade  and  to  assail  the  whole  policy  of  protection,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  injurious  to  the  English  people.  The  manufacturers,  shippers  and 
commercial  classes  could  be  successfull}-  appealed  to  on  many  grounds, 
but  they  alone  could  not  influence  parliament.  The  farmers  must  be  won 
over.  The  great  rural  constituency  must  be  converted  to  free  trade  before 
their  representatives  in  parliament  could  be  turned  away  from  the  cause 
of  protection.  The  demand  for  a  change  must  come  from  the  agricul- 
turists. The  landed  aristocracy,  educated  and  trained  in  statesmanship, 
were  too  well  informed  and  far-sighted  to  be  fooled  by  the  Manchester 
.school.  They  comprehended  the  whole  plan  in  all  its  bearings,  and 
pointed  out  the  identical  results  which  have  followed.  Understanding  the 
selfishness  and  avarice  which  gave  life  to  the  movement,  they  at  once  saw 
through  the  shams  by  which  the  free  traders  were  attempting  to  mislead 
and  deceive  the  people.  From  the  very  start  Cobden  and  his  associates 
realized  that  the  landowners  could  not  be  duped,  and  under  all  circum- 
stances would  oppose  their  scheme.  Here  was  a  definite  issue.  The 
manufacturers  on  one  side  and  the  landowners  on  the  other  made  up  the 
two  great  forces  which  must  fight  out  the  battle  of  free  trade  or  pro- 
tection. 

Through  all  the  centuries  in  which  the  landed  interests  had  controlled 
legislation  and  directed  the  policy  of  Great  Britain,  they  had  displayed 
the  greatest  liberality  toward  all  of  the  industries  of  the  country.  If  they 
had  been  as  short-sighted,  narrow-miixied  and  selfish  as  the  cotton  manu- 
facturers, protection  to  manufacturers  would  never  have  been  accorded. 
The  ports  of  England^would  have  b.een  kept  open,  and  they  would  have 
obtained  their  tools,  implements  and  clothing  on  the  Continent,  in  exchange 
for  their  wool,  wheat  and  other  produce.  Had  they  done  this,  there  would 
have  been  no  Cobdens  or  Brights  in  Manchester  to  assail  their  interests. 
Broad-minded  in  commercial  matters,  and  comprehending  the  industrial 
question  from  an  enlightened  and  statesmanlike  point  of  view,  they  foresaw 
the  advantages  which  their  country  might  derive  from  a  .system  of  diversi- 
fied industries,  and  the  wealth,  prosperity  and  independence  which  manu- 
facturing and  mining  would  bring  to  the  whole  people.  They  early 
recognized  and  approved  the  claims  of  the  merchants,  manufacturers, 
miners  and  shippers  to  protection.  Suitable  legislation  to  foster  and 
guard  the  interests  of  all  classes  was  year  by  year  extended,  as  changed 
conditions  and  the  growth  of  the  country  made  it  necessary.  The\-  had  ever 
been  protectionists,  not  especially  to  advance  their  own  interests,  but  to 
promote  the  welfare  of  all.     It  was  a  protectionist  parliament  that  had 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


introduced  the  sj-stem  of  national  education  in  England,  and  had  passed 
the  Reform  Act  in  1833,  which  destroyed  boroughs,  extended  the  right  of 
franchise,  and  gave  representation  in  parliament  to  those  who  had  hitherto 
been  denied  participation  in  the  affairs  of  the  government.  It  was  a 
protectionist  parliament  that  passed  the  law  of  Catholic  emancipation, 
repealing  those  provisions  of  the  penal  code  which  had  denied  to  Roman 
Catholics  the  right  to  sit  in  parliament.  It  was  a  protectionist  parliament 
that,  in  1831,  abolished  slavery  in  every  colony  over  which  the  British 
flag  waved. 

The  protectionists  of  England  were  foremost  in  governmental  reforms 
directed  to  the  improvement,  cultivation  and  elevation  of  the  English 
people.  Protectionism  in  England  was  based  upon  that  .spirit  of  nation- 
ality and  love  of  country  which  had  lifted  the  nation  from  insignificance  to 
the  proud  position  of  the  most  progressive,  independent  and  influential 
state  in  the  world.  The  promotion  of  the  material  welfare  of  all  the 
people  of  the  countrj'  had  been  the  cardinal  principle  of  the  statesmanship 
which  had  guided  the  nation  for  centuries.  Notwithstanding  the  broad 
and  wise  policy  which  had  been  favored  by  the  many  eminent  statesmen 
identified  with  the  landed  interests,  their  resistance  in  many  instances  to 
the  growth  of  free  government,  which  was  undermining  their  power  and 
invading  their  privileges,  made  them  unpopular  with  the  masses.  Ever 
jealous  of  their  hereditary  rights,  they  were  slow  to  yield  to  public  senti- 
ment, while  they  had  opposed  needed  reforms  and  wise  measures.  Their 
opulence  and  position  were  the  envy  of  the  masses,  and  even  when  their 
political  power  was  exercised  as  a  restraint  on  the  schemes  of  demagogues, 
however  unsound  they  might  be,  bad  motives  were  imputed  to  them,  and 
prejudices  were  easily  aroused.  The  insolent  and  arrogant  behavior  of 
the  narrow-minded,  cock-fighting  element  of  the  landed  gentry  brought 
them  all  into  disfavor.  It  was  an. easy  matter  to  arouse  the  prejudices  of 
the  nation  against  those  who  were  lording  over  it,  and  who  were  looked 
upon  bj'  many  as  an  obstacle  to  progress.  It  was  a  most  cunning  piece  of 
political  tactics  to  convert  the  free  trade  movement  into  an  attack  on  the 
aristocracy  of  the  countr>',  and  to  attempt  to  win  the  tenant  farmers  and 
masses  by  parading  the  policy  of  free  trade  before  the  country  as  one 
inaugurated  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor.  They  attempted  to  make  it 
appear  that  the  landowners  were  the  real  beneficiaries  under  protection, 
while  the  tenant  farmers  were  actually  injured  by  it.  With  the  land- 
owners unalterably  against  them,  they  must  necessarily  appeal  to  that 
other  branch  of  the  rural  population  which  stood  between  the  aristocracy 
and  the  common  laborers.  To  win  over  the  yeomanry  would  force  parlia- 
ment to  yield.  In  order  to  do  this,  they  must  first  convince  them  that 
farming  in  England  would  be  more  profitable,  and  could  better  be  carried 
on,  under  free  trade  than  under  protection.  It  was  to  this  branch  of  the 
rural  population  that  the  whole  campaign  was  directed. 


BETVRN  TO  FREE  TKADE. 

The  vast  body  of  tenant  farmers,  the  well-to-do  agriculturists,  who 
occupied  the  land  under  leases,  had  for  many  years  been  in  a  most  thrift}' 
and  comfortable  condition.  They  had  been  one  of  the  chief  elements  of 
strength  and  stability  in  the  nation.  It  was  from  this  class  that  Cromwell 
recruited  his  army  when  he  broke  the  power  of  kingcraft.  While 
ostensibly  assailing  the  landed  gentrj',  the  real  purpose  of  the  Anti- 
Corn  L,aw  League  was  to  destroy  the  interests  of  the  yeomanry.  The 
property  of  this  vast  body  of  farmers  was  marked  for  confiscation  through 
free  trade  legislation.  The  value  of  every  species  of  property  which  they 
had  gathered  about  them  by  years  of  industrj'  and  frugality  was  to  be 
reduced,  their  profits  destroyed,  incomes  annihilated  and  their  farms  and 
gardens  exposed  to  pillage  and  attack  by  foreigners.  A  more  vicious  and 
deliberate  purpose  to  annihilate  the  property  and  means  of  subsistence 
of  a  large  portion  of  an  empire  was  never  entered  upon.  There  is  not  in 
all  history  a  parallel  to  be  found.  The  tendency  of  the  nineteenth  centurj' 
in  every  other  country  has  been  to  elevate  and  improveThe  condition  of  the 
masses.  Here  we  find  a  movement  having  for  its  central  purpose  their 
degradation  and  oppression.  This  is  the  first  instance  in  the  historj^  of 
England  of  a  combination  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturers  to  promote 
their  own  interests,  regardless  of  the  welfare  of  others. 

Had  the  real  purpose  of  the  Anti-Corn  L,aw  League  been  disclosed  to 
the  agriculturists,  protection  could  never  have  been  overthrown.  Had 
they  proclaimed  or  admitted  what  they  believed  the  result  would  be,  the 
sense  of  fairness  per^-ading  the  masses  of  the  English  people  would  have 
made  their  triumph  impossible.  Had  they  told  the  farmers  what  they 
knew  to  be  a  fact,  that  the  land  would  go  out  of  cultivation,  and  that  the 
food  supply  of  the  English  people  would  be  brought  from  foreign  parts, 
their  speakers  would  have  failed  in  their  efforts.  The  blackest  page  in 
the  history  of  the  whole  movement  is  the  campaign  ' '  of  education, ' '  as 
they  called  it,  which  was  carried  on  among  the  farmers  from  1842  to  1846, 
to  convince  them  of  the  advantages  of  free  trade.  While  deliberately 
plotting  for  the  ruin  of  the  tenant  farmers,  the  Manchester  manufacturers 
were  professing  to  be  their  friends.  The  rural  districts  were  flooded  with 
the  literature  of  the  League.  Richard  Cobden,  John  Bright,  Colonel 
Thorn p.son,  and  many  other  .speakers,  were  going  from  place  to  place,  ad- 
dressing meetings  and  arousing  the  people  against  protection.  It  would 
not  do  to  tell  the  farmers  that  their  land  would  go  out  of  cultivation  ;  that 
cattle,  sheep,  hogs,  wheat,  barley,  rye,  oats,  and  even  butter,  cheese, 
eggs,  poultry-,  and  in  fact  nearly  everything  which  they  were  producing, 
would  be  .shipped  into  Manchester  and  the  great  commercial  centres  of 
England  from  other  countries.  Their  mission  was  to  get  the  farmers' 
votes,  procure  their  signatures  to  petitions  to  parliament,  a.sking  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  The  means  used  to  accomplish  this  were  most 
discreditable. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


They  told  the  farmers  that  they  were  paying  too  high  rents  and  being 
robbed  by  the  landlords  ;  that  the  adoption  of  free  trade  would  compel  a 
reduction  of  rent,  and  the  loss  would  fall  upon  the  landowners.  Another 
argument  which  the  professional  free  traders  never  neglect  on  any  occasion 
is  an  attempt  to  convince  by  flatterj-.  The  English  agriculturists  were 
told  how  much  more  skillful  they  were  than  those  of  other  countries,  how 
under  the  stimulating  influence  of  free  competition  their  energies  would  be 
aroused,  and  by  new  and  better  methods  of  cultivating  the  soil,  the  use  of 
machinery,  and  by  a  superior  knowledge  of  scientific  farming,  they  could 
defy  all  competition.  By  every  conceivable  argument  it  was  urged  that  the 
Engli.sh  farmers  would  be  benefited  by  free  trade.  In  1842  the  Anti-Corn 
L,aw  I^eague  gave  prizes  for  ' '  the  best  practical  essays  demonstrating  the 
injurious  effect  of  the  Corn  Laws  on  tenant  farmers  and  farm  laborers, 
and  the  advantages  which  those  classes  would  derive  from  its  total  and 
immediate  repeal."  The  three  prize  essays  were  written  by  George  Hope, 
Arthur  Morse  and  W.  R.  Gregg.  In  the  appeals  which  were  made  to  the 
farmers  to  induce  them  to  abandon  protection,  these  pamphlets  were  dis- 
tributed and  referred  to.  The  series  of  tracts  were  prefaced  by  a  mani- 
festo from  "The  Council  of  the  National  Anti-Corn  L,aw  League  to  the 
Farmers  of  the  United  Kingdom,"  asking  them  "  to  read  dispassionately 
and  calmh^  the  following  pages  which  are  devoted  exclusively  to  the  con- 
sideration of  your  interests  and  the  interests  of  your  dependents. ' ' 

Mr.  Hope,  at  page  13  of  his  essay,  said  to  the  farmers  : 

Upon  this  subject  of  protection,  let  me  remind  you  that  you  have  always  secured 
to  you  the  natural  protection  of  the  cost  of  bringing  the  corn  from  distant  countries. 
Upon  the  average,  I  believe  the  freight  and  other  charges  upon  corn  imported  from 
the  Baltic  or  America,  amount  to  ten  shillings  a  quarter.  And  this  I  say,  is  natural 
protection,  which  nobody  can  deprive  you  of.  Suppose  you  grow  four  quarters 
(thirty-two  bushels),  of  wheat  an  acre,  this  protection  of  ten  shillings  a  quarter, 
is  equal  to  two  pounds  an  acre. 

Notwithstanding  that  their  chief  objection  against  the  Corn  Laws  was 
based  upon  the  claim  that  they  tended  to  enhance  and  keep  up  the  price 
of  wheat,  and  that  their  whole  cry  in  the  manufacturing  centres  and  among 
the  commercial  classes  was  for  cheap  bread  and  the  removal  of  taxes  from 
the  food  of  the  poor,  they  argued  before  the  fanners  that  the  price  of  wheat 
would  be  higher  under  free  trade  than  it  had  been  under  protection.  We 
find  at  page  6  of  the  essay  written  by  Mr.  Morse,  the  following  argument 
to  show  that  free  trade  would  make  bread  dearer,  and  thus  result  in  a 
great  benefit  to  the  farmer.     He  says  : 

We  have  had  lower  prices  for  wheat  occasionally  since  1815,  than  we  ever 
should  have  had  with  free  trade.  It  will  hardly  be  disputed  that  the  Corn  Laws 
have  not  been  successful  in  preventing  very  low  prices  of  corn,  or  that  they  have 
not  succeeded  in  maintaining  a  rise  in  price,  which,  of  all  things,  is  of  the  most 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


benefit  to  fanners.     That  free  trade  would  operate  powerfully  in  accomplish- 
ing these  ends  there  are  very  good  reasons  to  suppose. 

Here  tliey  attempt  to  show  that  free  trade  will  bring  about  the  very- 
state  of  things  which  the  Anti-Corn  L,aw  League  was  organized  to  pre- 
vent. Mr.  Gregg  says,  in  his  prize  essay,  "That  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws  is  necessary  to  save  the  farmer  himself  from  ultimate  and  entire 
ruin." 

The  following,  from  Mr.  Cobden's  speech  delivered  at  Canterbury-  in 
1843,  is  taken  from  a  local  paper  published  at  the  time.  Speaking  of  the 
advantage  of  natural  protection  which  the  cost  of  transportation  gave  to 
the  English  farmers,  he  said  : 

The  cost,  not  merely  of  freightage,  but  of  loading,  insurance,  landing,  commis- 
sion, interest  and  loss,  and  every  item  for  the  conveyance  of  wheat  from  the 
merchant  at  Dantzic  to  the  merchant  at  Liverpool  was  10s.  dd. ,  a  quarter.  vSuppos- 
ing  they  grew  three  quarters  an  acre,  was  not  31^.  6rf.  sufficient  protection  ?  ^\^ly, 
it  was  more  than  their  rent,  and  he  said  that  the  farmers  could  compete  with  those 
at  Dantzic  rent  free.  But  the  corn  that  was  shipped  no  more  grew  at  Dantzic,  than 
the  corn  at  Liverpool,  grew  at  Liverpool.  It  was  brought  by  the  Vistula  perhaps 
some  three  hundred  or  four  hundred  miles  at  a  great  expense,  risk,  and  loss.  [Hear! 
Hear!]  The  average  cost  of  wheat  at  Dantzic  for  the  last  ten  years  had  been  upwards 
of  405.  a  quarter.  Would  the  farmers  then  believe  the  political  landlords  when  they 
told  them  that  good  wheat  could  be  brought  over  and  sold  here  for  25.?.  or  15^,  the 
quarter;  or  would  they  believe  anything  else  such  silly  people  taught  them? 

Then  with  respect  to  American  wheat: 

He  fairly  believed  that  it  could  not  be  imported  with  a  farthing  duty— indeed 
it  would  be  a  hard  strife  and  struggle  for  the  people  of  this  country  to  be  fed  from 
the  plains  of  America  at  no  duty  at  all.  Wheat  from  that  country  had  to  be  con- 
veyed at  least  one  thousand  five  hundred  miles  by  navigation  in  the  interior,  if 
not  over  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  It  was  brought  across  Lakes  Michigan  and 
Erie,  through  canals,  down  the  Hudson  River,  and  was  three  times  trans-shipped 
before  it  reached  the  ocean.  Would  they  then  tell  him  that  they  could  not  compete 
with  the  Americans,  whose  corn  was  also  grown  at  the  expense  of  4^.  a  day  for 
labor?  Why  could  they  not?  Because  they  suffered  themselves  to  be  bamboozled. 
There  lay  the  whole  secret.' 

To  assume  that  Mr.  Cobden  was  ignorant  of  what  was  then  taking 
place  in  the  world  would  be  a  reflection  tipon  his  intelligence.  This 
speech  was  delivered  at  the  very  time  when  steamship  navigation  and  the 
building  of  railroads  had  begun,  and  the  possibilities  of  cheap  transporta- 
tion were  attracting  the  attention  of  the  people  of  every  civilized  country. 
This,  however,  is  not  all  that  Mr.  Cobden  said  to  the  farmers  of  England 
in  this  line.     He  stated  in  a  speech  delivered  on  February  8,  1844,  that 

Free  trade  in  corn  is  the  very  way  to  increase  the  production  at  home,  and 
stimulate  the  cultivation  of  the  poorer  soils  by  compelling  the  application  of  more 
capital  and  labor  to  them.     We  do  not  contemplate  deriving  one  quarter  less  corn 

from  the  soil  of  this  country All  we  contend  for  is  this,  that  when  we 

1  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  11,  p.  13. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


have  purchased  all  that  can  be  raised  at  home,  we  shall  be  allowed  to  go   elsewhere 
for  more. ' 

Mr.  Cobden  ridiculed  the  warnings  of  Lord  George  Bentinck,  Disraeli 
and  others.      Referring  to  their  prophecies,  he  said : 

They  have  told  them,  the  farmers,  with  all  the  high  authority  that  belongs  to 
their  life  and  station,  that  the  Corn  Laws  will  be  abolished;  they  tell  their  tools, 
the  papers,  like  Grandmamma,  to  deal  out  in  their  diurnal  twaddle  the  argument 
that  if  the  Corn  Laws  are  abolished,  the  farmers  would  be  ruined,  even  if  they  paid 
no  rent.^ 

Again,  in  the  same  year  Mr.  Cobden  declared  that  it  was  positively  demoralizing 
to  argue  that  the  English  farmer  could  not,  with  free  imports,  compete  against  the 
foreigner.  Men  who  indulged  in  such  reasoning  were,  he  said,  "gross  humbugs" 
who  were  guilty  of  "  a  gratuitous  piece  of  impertinence. ' '  Free  trade,  he  added,  "will 
make  the  agriculturist  of  this  country  capable  of  competing  -wilh  the  farmers  of 
any  part  of  the  world.  "  ' 

Later  statements  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  and  Mr.  Cobden  show 
that  there  was  not  the  slightest  sincerity  in  the  arguments  which  were 
used  to  convert  the  farmers  to  the  doctrine  of  free  trade.  This  is  a  most 
interesting  period  in  the  tariff  history  of  the  world.  It  was  during  these 
years,  from  the  organization  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  in  1839  to  the 
repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  in  1846,  that  those  falsehoods  and  fallacies  which 
have  since  formed  the  basis  of  free  trade  arguments,  were  invented  to  mis- 
lead and  deceive  the  English  people.  The  American  people  have  been  made 
familiar  with  the  stock  phrases  and  arguments  employed  by  the  unscrup- 
ulous politicians,  who  brought  the  free  trade  movement  into  existence. 
Richard  Cobden  and  his  associates  were  masters  of  the  art  of  deception. 

The  same  parliament  which  was  elected  in  1841,  composed  of  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  protectionists,  remained  in  existence  until  after  the 
adoption  of  free  trade  in  1846.  It  was  to  this  body  that  the  Anti-Corn  Law 
League  was  appealing  for  a  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  To  convince  its 
members  that  they  should  violate  the  implied  and  expressed  pledges  given 
to  their  constituents,  and  abandon  the  principles  which  they  were  elected 
to  uphold,  was  the  object  of  the  unceasing  efforts  of  the  members  of  the 
league.  As  a  part  of  this  plan,  the  creation  of  a  public  sentiment  in  favor 
of  free  trade,  was  constantly  going  on.  The  presentation  of  petitions  to 
parliament,  signed  by  those  whom  they  had  converted  by  their  false  predic- 
tions afforded  a  pretext  for  the  action  of  those  members  of  parliament  who 
were  hesitating  to  desert  their  constituents.  That  they  were  constantly 
making  headway  by  all  the  devices  to  which  they  resorted,  there  can  be 
no  question,  yet  conditions  arose  between  1842  and  1845  which  made  their 
work  more  difficult.  Harvests  were  plentiful,  prices  were  moderate.  The 
business  of  the  country  was  in  a  flourishing  condition,  and  there  was  little 
excuse  apparent,  for  continuing  the  agitation,  but  it  went  on.     In  the  life 

■Fair  Trade  Journal.  Vol.  I,  p.  226.        =  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  276.          » Fair  Trade 


Free  trade 
gandism. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

of  Richard  Cobden,  written  by  Richard  Gowing,  and  published  by  the 
Cobden  Club,  may  be  found  the  following  important  admission,  which 
shows  that  the  cause  of  free  trade  thrived  on  the  misfortunes  of  the  people, 
while  in  times  of  plenty  and  prosperity,  Cobden  and  his  associates  made 
little  headwa)'.  "  In  1843,  and  more  especially  in  1844,  the  British  corn 
harvest  was  plentiful  and  the  price  of  wheat  ran  low,  and  the  working 
and  laboring  population  were  better  oS.  Upon  this  the  masses  of  the 
people  grew  less  eager  upon  the  question  of  corn  law  repeal."  ' 

The  opportunity  for  which  the  Anti-Corn  L,aw  League  had  been  waiting 
soon  arrived.  In  1845  the  wheat  han-est  was  a  failure  and  three  bad  j-ears 
followed  in  succession.  During  these  same  seasons  the  potato  crop  failed 
in  Ireland,  the  plant  having  been  struck  with  a  blight ;  the  potatoes 
rotted  in  the  ground,  and  the  country  was  visited  by  a  famine,  one  of  the 
most  terrible  in  the  history  of  modern  times.  This  was  the  golden  oppor- 
tunity for  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League.  They  took  advantage  of  the 
situation,  renewed  their  agitation  and  attributed  the  high  price  of  wheat, 
the  distress  and  suifering  in  the  country  to  the  Com  Laws.  That  the 
calamity  which  had  befallen  the  people  was  the  principal  cause  which  at 
that  time  contributed  to  the  overthrow  of  protection  and  the  establishment 
of  free  trade  was  fully  understood  at  the  time.  Mr.  Morley,  in  his  ' '  Life  of 
Richard  Cobden,"  speaking  of  the  opportunity  the  distressful  condition  of 
the  country  afforded  tcf  the  free  trader,  says  of  the  autumn  of  1845  :  "It 
was  the  wettest  autumn  in  the  memory  of  man.  Mr.  Bright  was  travel- 
ing in  Scotland.  The  rain  came  over  the  hills  in  a  downpour  that  never 
ceased  by  night  or  by  day.  It  was  the  rain  that  rained  away  the  Corn 
Laws."  "  In  the  same  autumn,"  says  Mr.  Gowing,  "when  men's  minds 
were  filled  with  gloomy  apprehensions  of  the  consequences  of  a  wet  har- 
vest, came  news  of  a  potato  famine  in  Ireland.  The  people  of  that 
country  lived  upon  potatoes  ;  the  plant  took  a  blight,  and  the  population  of 
Ireland  stood  face  to  face  with  starvation."' 

During  this  season  of  distress  the  free  trader  plunged  into  the  fight 
with  renewed  energy,  stopping  at  nothing  to  overthrow  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection. The  terrible  calamity  which  had  befallen  the  people  was  laid  at 
the  door  of  protectionists.  With  sympathetic  appeals,  solicitous  of  the 
welfare  of  the  masses,  they  proclaimed  the  doctrines  of  free  trade  as  a 
remedy  for  every  ill  from  which  the  people  were  suffering.  This  was  the 
time  chosen  by  "statesmen  to  educate  the  people  "  in  economic  doctrines, 
which  required  cool,  dispassionate  deliberation  and  reflection.  It  was  a 
fit  time  for  conspirators  to  do  their  work.  With  a  large  corruption  fund 
in  the  hands  of  "the  moving  men;"  with  excuses  and  justifications, 
prepared  by  the  members  of  the  league  to  ease  the  conscience  and  give 
courage  to  those  who  were  hesitating  to  betray  their  constituents  ;  with 
the  whole  country   kept  in  an   uproar  of  intense  excitement,  in  order  to 

•  ragf  94.        -L,ifc  ol   Uichard  Cobdcu,  p.  96. 


FREE  TRADE  LSQISLATION. 


frighten  the  timid  into  obedience  and,  if  possible,  stampede  a  legislative 
body,  that  policy  which  had  contributed  so  much  to  the  greatness  of 
England  was  overthrown. 

Notwithstanding  that  the  free  trade  measure  was  carried  by  a  majority 
of  ninety-eight,  such  action  was  taken  against  the  judgment  and  conscience 
of  parliament.  It  was  forced  through  with  an  utter  disregard  for  its  merits 
and  the  injury  it  would  inflict  upon  the  great  mass  of  the  English  people. 
In  proof  of  this,  we  have  the  statement  of  Mr.  Cobden  himself,  made  on 
the  twenty-sixth  of  November,  1852.  in  a  speech  delivered  before  the 
House  of  Commons  : 

It  is  no  .secret  that,  in  that  Parliament  (1846),  a  large  majority  of  the  House  of 
Commons  were,  in  their  hearts,  unfavorable  to  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  Prob- 
ably it  will  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  two-thirds  of  that  House,  were,  by  con- 
viction, if  not  by  interest, opposed  to  that  measure.  I  am  sure  that  it  only  required 
such  an  organization  of  official  men — a  sufficient  number  of  the  leading  statesmen — 
to  defeat,  with  the  support  which  the  majority  of  the  House  would  have  been  ready 
to  have  tendered,  the  proposition  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  and  to  have  carried  a  motion 
for  a  fixed  duty.' 

All  of  the  means  used  to  convince  parliament  against  its  will  that  the 
measure  should  pass,  will  remain  a  part  of  the  secret  history  of  the  cam- 
paign. How  the  leaders  of  the  League  prevented  a  sufficient  number  of 
"official  men"  from  organizing  and  opposing  the  passage  of  the  bill  is 
unknown.  It  is  a  most  remarkable  fact  that  men  elected  as  protectionists, 
who  were  "  in  their  hearts  unfavorable  to  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws," 
suddenly  became  free  traders.  This  was  a  most  remarkable  episode  in  the 
history  of  the  British  parliament.  No  legislative  body  was  ever  beset  by 
a  more  powerful  lobby  than  the  one  which  was  in  constant  attendance, 
representing  the  Manchester  manufacturers.  That  the  bill  was  carried  by 
the  most  flagrant  betrayal  of  constituencies,  was  openly  charged  in  the 
debate  by  Disraeli  and  other  members  of  the  House.  This  circumstance 
in  connection  with  the  low  order  of  political  morality  which  prevailed, 
and  the  enormous  sums  of  money  raised  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  at 
a  time  when  no  election  was  being  held,  casts  a  suspicion  of  the  gravest 
character  upon  the  movement.  The  following  account  of  the  sums  of 
money  raised  at  different  times  may  be  foimd  in  Mongredien's  "  History 
of  Free  Trade,"  Gowing's  "Life  of  Richard  Cobden,"  put  out  by  the 
Cobden  Club,  and  "  The  Charter  of  the  Nations,"  put  out  by  the  Anti- 
Corn  Law  League  in  1854,  and  written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dunckley. 

When  the  club  was  first  organized  in  1839,  $9000  was  raised  and  by 
February  9,  1840,  $36, 680  more.  At  this  time  $25,000  was  also  raised  to  pay 
theexpenses  of  the  committee  sent  to  lobby  with  parliament  in  their  interests. 
By  1842  they  had  raised  a  fund  of  $250,000.  Afl;er  this  was  accom- 
plished in  1843,  they  proposed  raising  a  fund  of  $500,000.     At  a  meeting 

'  Hansard,  Vol.  123,  p.  166. 


Real  view, 
of  the 
majority  i 


Suspicion 
as  to  the 


RETURN  TO,  FREE  TRADE. 


held  in  Manchester,  on  November  14,  1843,  $60,000  was  subscribed  in  an 
hour  and  a  half.     The  Times  of  November  18,  1843,  said : 

It  is  a  great  fact  that  at  one  meeting  in  Manchester  more  than  forty  manufac- 
turers subscribed  on  the  spot  one  hundred  pounds  sterling  each,  and  some  gave 
three  hundred  pounds  sterling,  some  four  hundred  pounds  sterling,  and  some  five 
hundred  pounds  sterling,  for  the  advancement  of  a  movement  which  right  or  wrong, 
just  or  unjust,  expedient  or  injurious,  they  at  least  believe  it  to  be  their  duty  and 
for  their  interest,  or  both,  to  advance  in  every  way  possible. 

At  a  meeting  held  in  Covent  Garden,  June  18,  1845,  Mr.  Wilson,  the 
chairman,  announced  that  $580,000  had  already  been  paid  in. 

It  would  seem  that  the  enormous  sum,  $630,000,  then  held  ought  to 
have  been  sufficient  to  run  a  highly  intellectual  and  moral  campaign,  con- 
ducted by  a  body  of  unselfish  thinkers,  but  they  needed  more.  At  a 
meeting,  held  in  the  Town  Hall  of  Manchester,  on  December  23,  1845,  it 
was  proposed  to  raise  an  additional  amount  of  $1,250,000.  In  a  short 
time  $750,000  of  this  last  subscription  had  come  in.  In  1854  the  Anti- 
Corn  Law  League  gave  a  prize  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  sterling  to 
the  person  who  would  write  the  best  history  of  the  free  trade  movement 
in  England.  A  book  written  by  the  Rev.  Henry  Dunckley,  entitled 
' '  The  Charter  of  the  Nations, ' '  was  awarded  the  prize.  This  work  having 
received  in  1854  the  approval  of  the  organization  which  founded  the  free 
trade  movement,  ought  to  be  good  authority  at  least  upon  the  question  of 
the  expenditure  of  this  vast  sum  of  money.  At  page  79,  Mr.  Dunckley 
says  upon  this  qtiestion,  speaking  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League,  "  They 
had  wealth  enough  for  any  purpose.  The  Constitution  recognized  wealth 
as  a  valid  title  to  political  power  ;  they  would,  therefore,  purchase  freeholds 
and  master  thecountry's  constituencies.  In  1844  they  had  raised  ^100,000 
($500,000)  for  carrying  on  the  agitation." 

' '  Purchase  freeholds  and  master  the  country's  constituencies. ' '  What 
does  this  mean?  Elections  had  been  held.  The  morning  Herald 
speaking  of  the  situation  said,  "  The  confederacy  (the  league)  is  powerful. 
The  sincerity  of  its  leading  men  is  testified  by  their  subscriptions,  and  the  de- 
termination of  its  moving  men  is  certified  by  their  indomitable  persever- 
ance, their  incessant  activity ,  and  their  remorseless  unscrupulousness. ' '  The 
' '  moving  men  ' '  were  the  ones  who  handled  the  money.  Men  of  ' '  remorse- 
less unscrupulousness"  attempting  to  convert  a  minority  into  a  majority. 

The  Morm7ig  Post  in  speaking  of  the  protectionists  and  the  possibili- 
ties of  a  free  trade  victory  said,  "  They  discovered  that  the  landed  interest 
was  not  likely  to  be  defended  by  the  owners  of  land  with  such  weapons  as 
in  these  days  prevail. ' ' 

The  work  of  the  League  by  this  time  had  been  so  well  done  that  a 
majority  of  members  of  parliament  could  be  relied  upon  to  desert  their 
party  and  favor  free  trade.  Many  influences  and  circumstances  combined 
to  bring  about  this  result.  The  manufacturers  and  commercial  classes  had 
'  united  under  the  most   powerful   political  organization  which  had  ever 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


attempted  to  influence  British  legislation.  Parliament  now  entered  upon 
that  series  of  acts  which  reversed  the  policy  of  the  government  and  intro- 
duced free  trade.  In  1845  a  bill  was  carried  through  which  placed  four 
hundred  and  twenty  articles  on  the  free  list,  many  of  which  were  of  trifling 
importance,  yet  they  included  the  principal  articles  of  raw  material,  such 
as  ashes,  barilla,  bark,  flax  and  tow,  sheep's  wool,  cotton  wool,  hemp, 
hides,  indigo,  madder,  palm  oil,  train  oil,  sago,  saltpetre,  raw  silk,  all  .sorts 
of  skins  and  furs,  straw  for  plaiting,  all  sorts  of  fancy  woods,  etc.  The 
duties  had  been  so  insignificant  upon  this  whole  class  of  articles  that  they 
were  gotten  rid  of  very  easily,  and  without  opposition. 

The  following  year,  1846,  is  one  of  the  most  memorable  in  the  history 
of  British  legislation.  The  session  of  parliament  opened  on  the  nine- 
teenth of  January.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  Prime  Minister,  in  his  address 
upon  the  Queen's  speech,  made  an  important  announcement  when  he  said, 
"My  opinions  on  the  subject  of  protection  have  undergone  a  change." 
This  was  followed  by  the  presentation,  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  January, 
of  the  famous  measure  in  question.  The  bill  provided  for  the  repeal  of  all 
protective  duties  on  wheat,  r>'e,  oats,  barley,  vegetables,  maize  and  buck- 
wheat, retaining  them  under  a  sliding  scale  of  diminishing  duties  until 
1849,  when  free  trade  in  the  products  of  the  farm  should  take  effect.  It 
repealed  the  duties  on  cattle,  sheep,  hogs,  beef,  bacon,  animal  food, 
vegetables  and  poultry,  while  it  continued  a  small  duty  on  butter,  cheese, 
hops  and  cured  fish,  for  revenue  purposes.  The  chief  textile  fabrics, 
cottons,  woolens  and  linen,  were  placed  on  the  free  list,  as  were  also  the 
principal  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
while  protection  was  wholly  taken  from  the  agriculturists,  that  only 
those  manufactured  articles  were  placed  on  the  free  list  in  which  the 
English  people  held  an  undoubted  supremacy.  The  duty  on  silk  manu- 
factures was  reduced  from  30  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Those  indus- 
tries in  which  machinery  had  not  been  fully  introduced  were  still  accorded 
a  moderate  degree  of  protection.  The  following  is  a  list  of  the  articles 
of  domestic  manufacture  upon  which  duties  were  still  maintained: 
Articles  Wholly  Manufactured. 


Silk,  not  made  up. 

Cotton,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up. 

Wool,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up. 

Flax,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up. 

Iron  and  steel,  wrought  or  unwrought. 

Brass  and  copper. 

China  and  earthenware. 

Glass. 

Paper. 

Opera  glasses,  etc. 

Extracts  and  essences. 

Bronze. 

Beer  and  ale. 


Clocks. 

Watches. 

Canes,  umbrellas,  parasols,  etc. 

Candles. 

Hats  and  bonnets. 

Embroidery  and  needlework. 

Leather. 

Musical  instruments. 

Chemical  oils,  essential  and  perfumed. 

Japanned  or  lacquered  ware. 

Lace. 

Other  articles. 


retained. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Articles  Partially  Manufactured. 


Wood  and  timber,  sawed  or  split. 

Olive  oil. 

Plaiting 

Iron  in  bars,  unwrought. 


Gum,  shellac  and  lac  dye. 

Verdigris. 

Woolen  and  worsted  yarn. 

Silk,  thrown. 

Drawback  on  silk  manufactures  exported. 

Other  articles.! 


Hides,  tanned,  tawed,  curried  or  dressed. 

It  was  with  reference  to  this  class  of  articles  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  said, 
"  I  do  not  abolish  all  protective  duties  ;  on  the  contrarj-,  the  amended 
tariff  maintains  many  duties  that  are  purely  protective,  distinguished  from 
revenue  duties." 

Mr.  Gladstone,  in  making  further  revisions  in  1853,  said,  in  referring 
to  this  class  of  articles,  that  they  proposed  to  abolish  all  duties  on  articles 
of  manufacture,  "  except  such  as  are  in  the  last  stage  as  finished  articles, 
and  are  commonly  connected  with  hand  labor;  in  regard  to  which  cases 
we  have  thought  it  more  prudent  and  proper  to  proceed  in  the  mode,  not 
of  abolition  but  of  reduction."^ 

The  question  of  exposing  the  tenant  farmers  to  free  competition  pro- 
voked one  of  the  most  violent  and  exciting  debates  ever  witnessed  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  While  Sir  Robert  Peel  had  become  the  nominal 
leader  of  the  free  trade  party,  Richard  Cobden  was  its  actual  leader.  Sir 
Robert  Peel  and  those  other  members  who  had  deserted  their  own  party 
and  gone  over  to  the  enemy,  were  but  doing  the  bidding  of  the  wily,  per- 
suasive and  irresistible  Cobden  and  his  associates,  who  threw  off  the  mask 
that  they  had  been  wearing  in  the  rural  districts,  and  addressed  themselves 
to  the  question  just  as  they  felt.  Cobden  took  the  bold  position  that  free 
trade  was  to  be  established  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  foreign  trade 
of  the  factories,  by  exchanging  their  wares  for  the  agricultural  produce  of 
foreign  coimtries.  He  said,  "  The  people  contended  for  the  right  to  ex- 
change labor  for  food. '"  This  involved  the  sacrifice  of  the  tenant  farmers, 
to  whom  he  had  given  assurances  that  they  would  not  be  injured  by  free 
trade. 

Mr.  Cobden  had  said  in  his  political  writings  : 

"  No  candid  advocate  of  a  protective  duty  will  dispute  that  to  restrict 
the  import  of  corn  into  a  manufacturing  nation,  is  to  strike  out  the  life  of 
its  foreign  commerce." 

He  further  said: 
The  question  of  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  then  resolves  itself  into  one 
of  absolute  State  necessity ;  since  our  foreign  trade,  which  is  indispensable  to  the 
payment  of  the  interest  of  the  national  debt,  cannot  be  permanently  preserved 
if  we  persevere  in  a  restrictive  duty  against  the  principal  article  of  exchange,  of 
rude  unmanufacturing  people.  To  prohibit  the  import  of  corn,  such  as  is  actually 
the  case  at  this  moment,  is  to  strangle  infant  commerce  in  its  cradle.* 

'  Hansard,  Vol.  83,  3d  series,  pp.  io-.i6.  ^Mr.  Gladstone's  Budget  Speech,  April  18, 1853,  revised 
edition.       a  Hansard,  Vol.  63,  p.  719,  May  24,  1842.        <  Gowiug's  Life  of  Cobden,  pp.  29-30. 


» 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


The  substance  of  this  declaration  is  simply,  that  for  the  English 
people  to  continue  to  raise  their  own  food  at  home,  would  prevent  that 
unlimited  exportation  of  manufactured  goods  which  was  so  desired.  One 
of  the  most  apt  illustrations  of  their  position  was  given  bj-  Mr.  Cobden  him- 
self in  his  speech  on  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  Referring  to  the  duty  on 
corn,  as  affecting  the  trade  between  England  and  the  United.  States,  he  said: 

Suppose  now  that  it  was  but  the  Thames  instead  of  the  Atlantic  which  separated 
the  two  countries;  suppose  that  the  people  on  one  side  were  mechanics  and  artisans, 
capable  by  their  industry  of  producing  a  vast  supply  of  manufactures,  and  that  the 
people  on  the  other  side  were  agriculturists,  producing  infinitely  more  than  they 
could  themselves  consume  of  corn,  pork  and  beef — fancy  these  two  separate  peoples 
anxious  and  willing  to  exchange  with  each  other  the  produce  of  their  common 
industries,  and  fancy  a  demon  rising  from  the  middle  of  the  river — for  I  cannot 
imagine  anything  human  in  such  a  position  and  performing  such  an  ofl&ce — fancy 
a  demon  rising  from  the  river  and  holding  in  his  hand  an  act  of  parliament,  and 
saying,  "You  shall  not  supply  each  other's  wants,"  and  then  in  addition  to  that, 
let  it  be  supposed  that  this  demon  said  to  his  victim  with  an  affected  smile,  ' '  This 
is  for  your  benefit;  I  do  it  entirely  for  your  protection."' 

The  whole  scheme  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  is  unmasked  in  this 
illustration  of  the  subject.  It  shows  that  the  movement  had  for  its  definite 
purpose  the  exchange  of  manufactured  products  of  England,  for  agricul- 
tural products  raised  in  other  countries.  This  involved  a  sacrifice  of  the 
agricultural  interests  of  the  countrj-.  It  contains  an  implied  admission 
that  the  farmers  of  England  could  not  successfully  compete  with  those  of 
other  countries  and  hence  must  give  way. 

It  shows  further  that  it  was  not  contemplated  that  the  English  people 
would  buy  manufactured  articles  from  other  countries.  Not  for  a  moment 
was  it  intended  that  a  single  factory  in  England  should  be  destroyed  or  an 
English  artisan  be  thrown  out  of  employment,  but  on  the  other  hand 
they  were  to  find  more  work  and  their  foreign  trade  was  to  be  extended 
by  this  class  of  exchanges.  Now  let  us  turn  Mr.  Cobden' s  supposition 
around  and  see  how  it  would  fit  his  purpose.  Let  us  assume  that  the 
people  on  the  east  side  of  the  British  Channel,  those  of  Belgium,  Holland, 
France  and  Germany  were  artisans  and  manufacturers,  possessed  of  the 
most  efficient  machinery  in  the  world,  the  most  skillful  artisans,  the  largest 
amount  of  accumulated  capital,  forty  years  in  advance  of  England  in 
manufacturing  and  able,  under  free  trade,  to  make  everything  so  cheaply 
that  they  could  inundate  England  with  their  wares,  close  every  factory 
and  drive  evers'  English  artisan  into  the  street.  Now  let  us  fancy  that  on 
the  west  side  of  the  British  Channel  there  were  20,000,000  of  English 
people  who  were  less  skillful  and  had  less  capital,  although  possessed  of 
great  natural  advantages  for  manufacturing,  without  which  they  could 
not  give  full  employment  to  their  people.     Let  us  assume  that  to  open 

1  Gowing's  Life  of  Richard  Cobden,  p.  82. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


their  ports  to  free  competition  would  result  in  the  ruin  of  their  industries, 
throw  their  laborers  out  of  employment,  and  reduce  them  to  poverty  and 
degradation.  What,  then,  would  Mr.  Cobden  have  said  ?  Would  he  have 
consented,  as  an  English  manufacturer  or  as  a  representative  in  parlia- 
ment, to  the  sacrifice  of  the  industries  of  his  own  countrj^?  Would  he, 
under  these  circumstances,  have  advocated  a  policy  that  would  have 
closed  his  own  and  every  cotton  factor}'  in  Manchester  ?  The  answer  is 
most  decidedly,  no  !  If,  under  these  circumstances,  a  being  had  risen 
in  the  British  Channel  holding  in  his  hand  an  act  of  parliament  saj'ing  to 
the  Continental  manufacturers,  ' '  You  shall  not  ruin  the  industries  of  the 
English  people  ;  you  shall  not  ruin  the  cotton  manufactures  of  Manches- 
ter, and  plunge  Mr.  Cobden,  John  Bright  and  the  other  members  of  the 
Anti-Corn  Law  League  into  bankruptcy  and  ruin  ;  "  instead  of  calling 
him  a  "  demon,"  Mr.  Cobden  would  have  been  the  first  to  pronounce  him 
a  protecting  and  guardian  angel.  If,  however,  Mr.  Cobden,  instead  of 
being  a  manufacturer,  had  been  living  upon  a  fixed  income  or  drawing  a 
pension  from  the  British  Government,  and  had  regard  only  for  his  own 
pecuniary  advantage,  the  opportunitj^  of  saving  three  dollars  on  a  suit  of 
clothes,  under  strict  free  trade  principles,  would  have  been  full  compensa- 
tion for  the  destruction  of  the  industries  of  his  own  country.  Nothing 
short  of  the  loss  of  his  pension  would  shake  his  confidence  in  ' '  sound 
economic  principles." 

Mr.  Cobden  was  a  manufacturer  speaking  for  interests  which  were 
able  to  defy  the  world  in  the  battle  of  competition.  He  was  talking  solely 
for  the  profit  and  advantage  of  those  manufacturers  who  had  everj'thing 
to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose  by  free  trade.  He  was  advocating  a  polic>- 
which  he  supposed  to  be  peculiarly  fitted  to  the  condition  which  then 
existed  in  his  own  country.  The  question  had  now  reached  a  point  at 
which  disguises  were  thrown  ofi",  the  real  attitude  of  the  free  trader 
toward  the  farming  interests  was  being  made  known,  and  the  effect  of  free 
competition  was  no  longer  a  matter  of  doubt.  Colonel  Perronet  Thomp- 
son, in  speaking  against  the  Corn  Laws,  urged  their  repeal  upon  the  sole 
ground  of  advantage  arising  from  existing  conditions.  He  .said,  "That 
to  encourage  the  importation  of  agricultural  produce  would  extend  the 
manufactures."  "  To  refijse  it,"  he  remarked,  "  is  like  a  draper's  refusing 
to  sell  cloth  and  buy  bread,  lest  he  should  raise  up  a  rival  in  the 
baker.  .  .  .  The  power  of  increasing  our  wealth  and  population  by 
exchanging  manufactures  for  food,  is  what  God  has  given  us  to  hold  our 
ground  with."  '  This  same  Colonel  Thompson,  in  his  "  Free  Trade  Cate- 
chism," in  answer  to  the  proposition  that  "without  cultivation  there  could 
be  neither  trade  nor  manufactures,"  replied  :  "It  maybe  information  to  the 
home  agriculturists  to  state,  that  there  would  be  no  physical  impossibility 
in  living  without  them  altogether."  '"' 

'  l-aii-  Trade  Joura.il,  Vol.  i,  p.  iS.        -  l-air  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  i,  p.  3S. 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


It  was  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  cotton  manufacturers,  that  Sir 
Roljert  Peel  betraj-ed  his  own  party  and  went  over  to  the  side  of  the 
Anti-Corn  Law  League.  In  his  speech  on  January  27,  1846,  he  said: 
'  ■  They  wish  to  establish  the  prosperity  of  that  great  staple  manufacture  of 
this  country,  the  cotton  manufacture,  on  some  sure  and  certain  foundation." 

Justin  McCarthy,  in  his  "  History  of  Our  Own  Times,"  in  describing 
the  debate  in  the  House  upon  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  refers  to  the 
sudden  change  which  came  over  Sir  Robert  Peel.  Elected  as  a  protec- 
tionist ;  bound  by  all  party  affiliations  and  loyalty  to  defend  in  parliament 
the  views  of  those  whose  votes  he  had  solicited,  he  went  over  to  the  enemy's 
camp  as  soon  as  the  free  traders  presented  a  show  of  a  majority.  He 
abandoned  the  leadership  of  his  own  party,  ■  to  become  the  leader  of  its 
antagonist.  He  was  the  first  to  betray  the  trust  which  had  been  committed 
to  him.  It  is  a  reflection  on  his  intelligence  for  free  traders  to  justify  this 
betrayal  upon  the  ground  that  he  had  changed  his  opinion.  Peel  was  a 
leader  in  parliament  with  Huskisson  and  Canning  in  1826.  For  twenty 
years  he  had  defended  the  principles  of  protection  and  was  conversant  with 
every  branch  of  the  subject.  Mr.  McCarthy  seems  to  think  the  following 
criticism  by  Mr.  Disraeli  justifiable  : 

Mr.  Disraeli  did  therefore  the  very  wisest  thing  he  could  do,  when  he  launched  at 
once  into  a  severe  personal  attack  upon  Sir  Robert  Peel.  The  speech  abounds  in  pas- 
sages of  audaciously  powerful  sarcasm.  "  I  am  not  one  of  the  converts, ' '  Mr.  Disraeli 
said.  "  I  am  perhaps  a  member  of  a  fallen  party.  To  the  opinions  which  I  have 
expressed  in  this  House  in  favor  of  protection  I  still  adhere.  They  sent  me  to  this 
House,  and  if  I  had  relinquished  them  I  should  have  relinqui.shed  my  seat  also." 
That  is  the  keynote  of  the  speech.  He  denounced  Sir  Robert  Peel,  not  for  having 
changed  his  opinions,  but  for  having  retained  a  position  which  enabled  him  to 
betray  his  party.  He  compared  Peel  to  the  Lord  High  Admiral  of  the  Turkish  fleet, 
who,  at  a  great  war-like  crisis  when  he  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  finest  armament 
that  ever  left  the  Dardanelles  since  the  days  of  Solomon  the  Great,  steered  at  once 
for  the  enemy's  port,  and  when  arraigned  as  a  traitor,  said  that  he  really  saw  no 
use  in  prolonging  a  hopeless  struggle,  and  that  he  had  accepted  the  command  of  the 
fleet  only  to  put  the  Sultan  out  of  pain,  by  bringing  the  struggle  to  a  close  at  once. 
' '  Well  do  we  remember,  on  this  side  of  the  House,  not  perhaps  without  a  blush,  the 
efforts  we  made  to  raise  him  to  the  bench  where  he  now  sits.  Who  does  not  remem- 
ber the  sacred  cause  of  protection,  for  which  Sovereigns  were  thwarted,  Parliament 
dissolved,  and  a  nation  taken  in?  "I  belong  to  a  party  that  can  triumph  no  more, 
for  we  have  nothing  left  on  our  side  except  the  constituencies  which  we  have  not 
betrayed.  "  He  denounced  Peel  as  "a  man  who  never  originates  an  idea;  a  watcher 
of  the  atmosphere;  a  man  who  takes  his  observations,  and  when  he  finds  the  wind 
in  a  particular  quarter  trims  his  sails  to  suit  it;"  and  he  declared  that,  '"such  a 
man  may  be  a  powerful  minister,  but  he  is  no  more  a  great  statesman  than  the  man 
who  gets  up  behind  a  carriage  is  a  great  whip. ' '  ' 

In  this  great  controversy  Disraeli  made  his  mark.  He  lifted  himself 
at  once  to  the  leadership  of  the  Conservative  party.  Perfectly  fearless  in 
maintaining  his  position,  unswerving  in  his  adherence  to  principles,  he 

1  A  History  of  Our  Own  Times,  c.  14. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


never  betrayed  his  party  nor  violated  the  confidence  of  those  who  elevated 
him  to  position  and  power.  The  events  which  followed  the  adoption  of 
free  trade  confirm  the  wisdom  of  his  course  against  it. 

Lord  George  Bentiuck  was  one  of  the  men  who  upheld  the  interests 
of  the  English  people  during  this  struggle.  With  almost  prophetic  vision 
he  foretold  the  calamities  which  would  certainly'  befall  the  English  people 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  measure.  With  a  much  better  knowledge  of 
human  affairs  ;  with  a  more  profound  statesmanship  than  Cobden,  Peel,  or 
Bright,  this  man,  although  scarcely  mentioned  in  English  commercial  his- 
tory, was  possessed  of  a  wisdom  far  beyond  that  of  his  three  contemporaries, 
who  have  been  advertised  and  exalted  by  free  trade  writers  since  that  time. 
Greater  inconsistencies  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  writings  and  speeches  of 
any  man  of  the  time  than  in  those  of  Cobden.  An  absolute  failure  as  prophet, 
he  placed  a  low  estimate  on  the  ability  and  patriotism  of  the  statesmen  and 
people  of  other  nations.  He  was  ignorant  of  the  effect  upon  trade  and 
commerce,  of  the  economic  changes  which  were  then  taking  place  and 
which  were  fully  comprehended  by  the  public  men  of  the  time.  He  was 
attempting  to  commit  the  people  of  England  to  a  policy  which  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  could  be  only  of  short-lived  advantage  to  the  manufac- 
turers. He  is  not  to  be  compared  with  such  men  as  Lord  George  Ben- 
tinck,  who,  in  defending  the  protective  policy  and  speaking  of  the  effect 
of  free  trade  upon  all  the  industries  of  the  nation,  said  ; 

It  is  a  measure  which  is  not  confined  in  its  operation  to  this  great  class.  It  is 
calculated  to  grind  down  countless  smaller  interests,  engaged  in  the  domestic  trade, 
and  interests  of  the  empire,  transferring  the  profits  of  all  these  interests,  English, 
Scotch,  Irish  and  Colonial,  great  and  .small  alike,  from  Englishmen,  from  Scotch- 
men and  from  Irishmen,  to  Americans,  to  Frenchmen,  to  Russians,  to  Poles,  to 
Prussians  and  to  Germans.' 

If  lyord  George  Bentinck  stood  in  the  British  Parliament  to-day,  after 
forty  years  of  experience,  he  could  not  state  the  case  more  accurately. 

The  late  Duke  of  Rutland,  then  the  Marquis  of  Granby,  was  one  of 
the  most  able  and  conscientious  upholders  of  the  policy  of  protection ,  and 
during  his  long  career  which  closed  in  1888,  he  saw  all  of  his  predictions 
and  opinions  upon  the  effect  of  the  measure  fulfilled.  The  Times  of 
March  5,  1886,  in  .speaking  of  his  attitude  at  the  time  the  foreign  laws 
were  under  discussion,  said  : 

But  by  the  time  the  Corn  Law  agitation  had  a.ssumed  formidable  proportions  he 
was  recognized  as  one  of  the  principal  leaders  of  the  protectionist  party.  When  Sir 
Robert' Peel  brought  forward  his  great  free  trade  measure  in  1846,  the  Marquis  of 
Granby,  while  giving  the  Premier  credit  for  pure  and  honorable  motives,  declared 
that  if  he  had  promulgated  the  same  opinions  in  1841,  he  would  never  have  been 
suflered  to  propose  them  as  a  Minister  of  the  Crown.  The  effect  of  free  trade  might 
be  to  increase  the  exports,  but  Lord  Granby  maintained  that  the  home  consumption 
of  manufactures  would  fall  off  in  equal  proportion,  as  agriculturists  would  be 
deprived  of  funds  wherewith  to  purchase  them. 

'  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  276- 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


The  position  occupied  by  this  distinguished  protectionist  is  indica-' 
ted  by  the  fact,  that  for  a  time  in  1S48,  he  was  selected  to  succeed  Lord 
George  Bentinck  as  the  leader  of  the  protectionist  party.  The  Times 
said  of  his  speeches  on  the  question : 

At  the  close  of  the  same  session  when  Mr.  Disraeli  moved  for  a  select  commit- 
tee to  consider  the  state  of  the  nation,  Lord  Granby  delivered  a  speech  which 
created  a  marked  impression.  In  opposition  to  Sir  Robert  Peel,  he  maintained 
that  the  disastrous  condition  of  the  laborer  was  due  to  free  trade,  and  produced  a 
record  of  wages  in  Manchester  in  1845  and  1849,  which  showed  that  the}'  had  been 
reduced  in  every  species  of  manufacture  without  an  equivalent  in  the  fall  of  prices. 
He  also  emphatically  denied  the  charge  that  the  country  gentlemen  desired  to 
maintain  their  rents,  at  the  expense  of  the  laboring  classes.  In  several  succeeding 
sessions  the  Marquis  returned  to  the  subject,  uniformly  contending  that  the  distress 
in  the  agricultural  districts  was  owing  to  legislation  and  that  it  must  assume  a  per- 
manent character  unless  the  causes  were  removed. 

In  supporting  Mr.  Disraeli's  motion  in  favor  of  the  relief  of  agricul- 
ture in  the  session  of  1851,  his  lordship  said  that:  "After  five  years' 
experience  of  free  trade  the  landed  interest  was  in  a  worse  position  than 
when  it  began.  The  L,egislature, "  he  held,  "  would  be  compelled,  sooner 
or  later,  to  return  to  protection,  admitting  the  principle  that  for  every  tax 
imposed  upon  the  home  producer  an  equivalent  tax  must  be  laid  upon  the 
foreigner. ' ' 

At  the  dinner  given  bj^  the  master  cutlers  in  Sheffield,  in  1885,  he 
spoke  as  follows  :  ' '  With  a  small  duty  on  corn  I  would  put  a  heavy  duty 
upon  all  manufactured  articles.  I  would  admit  raw  materials  free  ;  I 
would  take  off  the  duty  on  tea  and  sugar  and  above  all,  the  poor  man's 
tobacco. ' '  This  sound  protectionist  doctrine  is  the  expression  of  an  able 
and  conservative  statesman,  who  had  lived  under  both  policies  and  had 
seen  the  actual  workings  of  thirty-five  years  of  free  trade. 

The  following  speech,  delivered  by  Lord  Derby  in  defence  of  protec- 
tion to  agriculture,  refutes  many  statements  of  free  traders  as  to  the  effect 
of  the  Corn  Laws  upon  the  price  of  wheat.     He  said  : 

My  lords,  you  are  called  upon  to  abandon  the  Corn  Laws  of  1S42.  And  why? 
In  what  respect  has  it  deceived  your  expectations?  How  has  it  falsified  j'our  pro- 
phecies? Your  prophecies  have  been  realized  to  a  wonderful  degree  of  accuracy. 
In  what  respect  has  it  failed?  The  object  of  this  and  every  Corn  Law  I  take  to  be, 
to  place  this  countr}-  in  a  state  of  virtual  independence  of  foreign  countries  for  its 
suppl}'  of  food.  I  know  that  object  may  be  scouted  by  some  of  the  very  enlight- 
ened politicians  of  the  present  day,  but  it  was  not  thought  unworthy  the  considera- 
tion of  great  men  not  long  passed  away  from  among  us;  and  if  your  lordships  will 
forgive  me  for  referring  to  it,  I  will  quote  a  passage  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Huskisson, 
which  puts  the  whole  question  in  a  few  words  in  the  clearest  light  in  which  it  can 
be  seen.  He  was  writing  at  the  close  of  the  war,  and  his  sentiments  are  worthy  of 
the  deepest  attention.  We  have  forgotten  the  circumstances  of  that  time;  some  of 
us,  indeed,  are  too  young  to  remember  them,  but  generally  we  seem  not  to  remem- 
ber in  dealing  with  this  question,  the  evils  to  which,  prior  to  1815,  this  country  had 
been  subjected  from  its  dependence  for  a  supply  of  com  on  foreign  countries. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


The  passage  quoted  from  Mr.  Huskisson's  letter  was  as  follows: 
The  present  war,  it  is  true,  is  now  at  an  end ;  but  peace  is  at  all  times  too  pre- 
uot  to  induce  us  to  guard  against  the  repetition  of  similar  calamities  when- 
ever hostilities  may  be  renewed.  But  even  in  peace,  the  habitual  dependence  cu 
foreign  supplies  is  dangerous.  We  place  the  subsistence  of  our  own  population  not 
only  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  powers,  but  also  on  their  being  able  to  spare  as  much 
corn  as  we  may  want  to  buy.  Let  the  bread  we  eat  be  the  produce  of  corn  grown 
among  ourselves,  and  for  one,  I  care  not  how  cheap  it  is.  The  cheaper  the  better. 
It  is  cheap  now,  and  I  rejoice  at  it ;  because  it  is  altogether  owing  to  a  sufficiency 
of  corn  of  our  own  growth.  But  in  order  to  insure  a  continuance  of  that  cheap- 
ness and  that  sufficiency,  we  must  insure  our  growers  that  protection  against 
foreign  imports  which  has  produced  these  blessings  and  by  which  alone  they 
can  be  permanently  maintained.  The  history  of  the  country  for  the  last  one 
hundred  and  seventy  years  clearly  proves,  on  the  one  hand,  that  cheapness  produced 
by  foreign  import  is  the  sure  forerunner  of  scarcity,  and,  on  the  other,  that  a  steady 
home  supply  is  the  only  safe  foundation  of  steady  and  moderate  prices. 

Lord  Derby  resumes: 

Now,  my  lords,  you  aim  by  a  Corn  Law,  at  independence  of  foreign  supply, 
accompanied  and  produced  by  such  an  encouragement  to  your  home  grower,  as  shall 
guarantee  him  up  to  a  certain  point  against  foreign  competition,  and  shall,  beyond 
that  point,  protect  the  consumer  against  exorbitant  and  extravagantly  high  prices, 
protecting  all  parties  against  that  which  is  most  injurious  to  all — rapid  and  sudden 
fluctuations.  Now,  I  say,  that  beyond  any  law  which  has  ever  been  in  force  in  this 
or  any  other  country,  this  law  of  1S42  has  accomplished  these  its  great  and  main 
objects.  First,  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  a  home  supply,  we  have  no  statis- 
tical tables  in  this  country  and  it  is  a  great  pity  we  have  not,  Ijy  which  we  could 
ascertain  year  by  year,  the  amount  of  the  production  of  the  countrj^,  but  if  it  can  be 
proved  that  in  a  state  of  society  in  which  the  population  is  increasing  as  rapidly  as 
has  been  stated  by  the  noble  Earl,  and  in  which,  let  me  add,  the  proportion  of 
wheat  consumers  is  increasing  more  rapidly,  still  the  population  of  this  great 
country  has  not  alone  had  a  sufficiency  to  meet  the  increased  demand,  but  has  had 
that  sufficiency  at  a  reduced  price  and  with  a  diminished  and  not  an  increased 
supply  from  abroad;  then  my  lords,  I  maintain  that  the  inference  is,  that  protec- 
tion has  fully  effected  its  object;  and  that  by  its  means  we  have  been  enabled  to 
keep  pace  with  the  increasing  demand  of  our  increasing  population.  I  will  show 
you,  my  lords,  that  this  has  been  the  case. 

I  find  that  speaking  of  wheat  alone — and  I  shall  confine  nn-self  throughout  to 
wheat,  and  not  weary  your  lordships  with  unnecessary  details  with  regard  to  other 
grain,  the  principles  being  the  same  in  all — in  the  course  of  these  last  twenty  years 
we  have  imported  21,432,000  quarters  of  wheat.  The  yearly  average  for  the  last 
twenty  years  amounts  to  1,021,000  quarters;  for  the  last  three  years  741,000  quarters; 
and  in  the  course  of  the  last  year  it  was  308,000  quarters.  Has  this  result,  I  would 
ask,  been  produced  by  any  increased  price  of  wheat  at  home?  A  g:ei.t  number  of 
fallacies  have  been  made  use  of,  and  statements  attributed  to  us,  who  defend  this 
Corn  Law,  which  we  never  uttered.  We  are  constantly  told  that  the  intention  of 
this  Corn  Law  was  to  guarantee  to  the  farmer  the  price  of  555.  a  quarter.  The  inten- 
tion of  the  Corn  Law  was  no  such  thing.  My  Right  Honorable  friend  in  introduc- 
ing the  measure,  stated  that  if  by  legislation  he  could  fix  the  average  price  of  corn 
he  would  fix  it  from  54.$.  to  $8s.  The  avowed  object  of  the  Corn  Law,  therefore, 
was  this,  that  when  the  price  is  above  585.  the  consumer  should  be  protected  by  a 
large  influx  of  foreign  corn,  and  that  when  the  price  was  below  54^.  the  producer 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


should  be  protected  against  any  other  competition  than  that  which  he  can  engage 
with  upon  equal  terms — namely,  competition  with  those  who  are  exposed  to  the 
same  vicissitudes  of  the  same  climate,  and  who  have  the  same  advantages  and  are 
subject  to  the  same  burdens  and  restrictions  with  himself. 

What  has  been  the  result  of  the  Corn  Law  as  far  as  the  consumer  is  concerned? 
I  find  that  the  average  price  of  wheat  for  the  last  twenty  years  has  been  575.  4(/.  a 
quarter,  whilst  the  average  price  for  the  last  three  years,  since  the  Corn  L,aw  passed, 
has  only  been  50s.  <)d.,  and  the  price  last  year,  which  we  have  been  told  was  a 
period  of  great  scarcity,  was  505.  \od.  My  Right  Honorable  friend  stated  his  wish 
to  keep  the  price  between  54^.  and  585.,  and  since  the  passing  of  the  bill  the  annual 
average  price  has  not  risen   above  $os.  gi/. ,  or  505.  lod. 

But  a  return  laid  before  the  House  of  Commons  gives  a  more  accurate  test  of  the 
operation  of  the  sliding  scale,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  acts  to  check  the  tend- 
ency to  a  rise  of  price  whenever  the  tendency  is  exhibited.  The  paper  I  allude  to 
is  a  return  of  the  weekly  prices  of  corn  in  every  week  from  March,  1S44,  to  March, 
1S46;  and,  with  respect  to  those  one  hundred  and  four  weeks,  the  result  was  that  the 
price  has  been  between  54.?.  and  585.  in  no  less  than  forty-three  of  these  weeks ;  the 
price  has  been  below  54J.  in  fifty-four  other  weeks ;  the  price  has  been  above  585.  in 
.seven  weeks  onl}',  and  the  price  has  never  risen  in  any  one  week  above  59.S.  So  far, 
therefore,  as  concerns  the  consumer,  has  he  any  right  to  say  that  the  Corn  Law  has 
deceived  any  expectations  he  was  led  to  form  of  it?  Now,  although  it  is  quite  true 
that  the  prices  of  corn  have  fallen  considerably  below  that  which  was  anticipated  by 
Right  Honorable  friend,  if  we  look  to  the  total  amount  imported  since  the  great 
influx  of  2,500,000  quarters,  immediately  after  the  passing  of  that  measure,  we  shall 
find  that  of  2,000,000  quarters  which  have  come  in  since  that  time  there  have  been 
entered  under  55.S.  only  305,000  quarters;  between  55.J.  and  59^.,  the  actual  point  at 
which  we  desired  to  limit  it  by  the  bill,  1,475,000  quarters;  and  between  ^cjs.  and 
62s.,  261,000  quarters.  I  conceive,  therefore,  the  law  has  operated  in  the  manner, 
and  nearly  to  the  extent  it  was  expected  to  operate. 

Another  great  and  important  point  respects  the  fluctuations  in  the  price  of  corn. 
Since  this  passed  the  fluctuation  of  price  which  has  taken  place  between  1844  and 
1S46  is  only  from  58.?.  4^/. ,  to  45.?.  2d.  The  whole  difference  between  the  highest 
week  and  the  lowest  week  in  these  two  years  was  not  a  difference  of  30  per  cent. 
The  greatest  weekly  fluctuation  in  the  price  between  any  one  week  and  the  succeed- 
ing is  IS.  6d.  ;  and  the  greatest  fluctuation  in  any  period  for  the  whole  four  weeks 
of  the  month  is  a  fluctuation  of  4s. ,  and  no  more 

But  if  your  lordships  wish  to  refer  to  a  period  of  the  greatest  fluctuation  in 
this  country,  refer  to  the  period  between  1792  and  1805  ;  a  period  when  there  was  the 
greatest  dependence  on  the  foreigner.  Hear  on  this  subject  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
Malthus,  in  a  pamphlet  written  by  him  in  the  year  1814.  He  says:  "During  the 
last  centurj'  the  period  of'our  greatest  importation  and  dependence  on  foreign  corn 
was  between  1792  and  1805,  and  certainly  in  no  four  years  of  the  whole  century  was 
the  fluctuation  so  great.  In  1792  the  price  was  42^.  ;  in  1796,  it  was  yjs.  ;  in  1801,  it 
was  iiSs.  ;  and  in  1S03,  56.?."  vSo  that  between  1792  and  1801  the  price  was  almost 
tripled;  and  in  the  short  period  between  1798  and  1S03  it  rose  from  505.  to  1185. , 
and  fell  again  to  565. ,  and  that  in  that  period  of  the  history  of  this  country  in 
which  we  were  most  dependent  on  foreign  supply.  • 

It  was  on  the  third  reading  of  the  Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  Bill,  in 
1846,  that  Mr.  Disraeli  said: 

It  may  be  in  vain  now,  in  the  midnight  of  their  intoxication,  to  tell  them  that 
there  will  be  an  awakening  of  bitterness.     It  may  be   idle  now  in  the  spring-tide 
'■  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  170-1. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


of  their  economic  frenzy,  to  warn  them  that  there  will  be  an  ebb  of  trouble. 
But  the  dark  and  inevitable  hour  will  arrive:  then — when  their  spirit  is  softened  by 
misfortune — they  will  recur  to  those  principles  which  made  England  great,  and  in 
our  belief  can  alone  keep  England  great.  They  may  then  perchance  remember, 
not  with  unkindness,  those  who,  betrayed  and  deserted,  were  neither  ashamed  nor 
afraid  to  struggle  for  the  good  old  cause — the  cause  with  which  are  associated  prin- 
ciples the  most  popular,  sentiments  the  most  entirely  rational — the  cause  of  labor, 
the  cause  of  the  people,  the  cause  of  England.' 

The  bill  was  opposed  by  the  most  experienced  statesmen  and  the  most 
broad-minded  members  in  the  body.  The  reader  will  be  interested  to  know 
that  upon  the  real  test  to  which  the  principles  of  free  trade  were  subjected 
during  the  years  which  have  followed,  every  essential  prediction  made  by 
Richard  Cobden  and  his  associates,  as  to  their  effect  upon  the  industries 
of  the  country,  proved  false  ;  while  the  protectionists  fully  realized  the 
disasters  which  the  change  of  policy  would  bring  upon  the  English  people. 
The  weakness  of  the  ministry  in  yielding  to  the  free  trade  clamor,  proved 
their  utter  unfitness  to  deal  with  great  economic  problems. 

Mr.  Baring  in  his  remarks  in  opposition  to  the  passage  of  the  measure 
well  said,  ' '  He  believed  that  the  greatest  want  under  which  the  countrj- 
labored  was  the  want  of  ministers,  and  the  most  appalling  scarcity  was 
that  of  statesmen. "  '" 

Mr.  W.  Miles  said,  "  He  foresaw  that  the  time  would  soon  arrive 
when  the  people  of  these  islands  would  curse  the  day  when  their  govern- 
ment was  entrusted  to  a  temporizing  minister. ' '  " 

Sir  Robert  Peel,  in  his  closing  remarks,  defended  the  measure  on  the 
ground  of  the  superior  fitness  of  the  English  industries  to  meet  free  compe- 
tition. He  said,  "  Iron  and  coal,  the  sinews  of  manufacture,  give  us 
advantages  over  every  rival  in  the  great  competition  of  industry.  Our 
capital  far  exceeds  that  which  they  can  command.     In  ingenuity,  in  skill, 

in  energy,  we  are  inferior  to  none And  is  this  the  coimtry  to 

shrink  from  competition  ?  "  * 

In  this  statement  he  expressed  the  grounds  upon  which  Mr.  Cobden 
and  his  associates  had  pressed  the  question  from  the  very  start.  Their 
reliance  upon  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  practical  operation  of 
free  trade  rested  solely  upon  their  ability  to  undersell  and  destroy  even,' 
rival  in  every  market  equally  accessible  to  both.  The  student  of  tariff  his- 
tory should  not  lose  sight  of  the  advantage  which  the  English  manufacturer 
then  held  in  this  respect.  This  fact  was  kept  prominently  in  the  fore- 
ground by  the  advocates  of  free  trade  from  the  very  inception  of  the  move- 
ment, and  should  never  be  lost  sight  of  by  any  people  of  any  country  in 
adopting  a  tariff  policy. 

The  debate  which  followed  the  introduction  of  this  measure  lasted 
twelve  nights.     Forty-eight  speeches  were  delivered  in  favor  of  free  trade. 


2  History  of  Free  Trade  Moveiu 


England,  p.  i45- 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 

and  fifty-eight  in  favor  of  protection.  The  bill  finally  passed  in  its  third 
reading  on  the  fifteenth  of  May,  at  four  o'clock  in  the  morning,  by  327  in 
favor,  and  229  against.  By  the  twenty-sixth  of  the  same  month,  it  had 
passed  the  House  of  Lords  and  received  the  approval  of  the  Queen.  ' 

As  the  excitement  of  the  occasion  passed  away  and  the  country 
settled  down  to  the  practical  operation  of  its  provisions,  the  tenant  farmers 
began  to  feel  the  blighting  influence  of  the  competition  to  which  they 
were  exposed.  That  natural  protection  which  their  location  secured  to 
them  under  the  cost  of  transportation,  was  insufficient  to  accomplish  the 
results  which  had  been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Cobden,  even  before  material 
reductions  had  been  made  in  freight  rates.  It  is  very  interesting  to  note 
the  position  taken  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  as  thej'  saw  the 
farmers  of  England  enter  the  life-and-death  struggle  in  which  they  had 
been  plunged  by  those  who  had  conspired  to  bring  about  their  ruin.  In 
less  than  five  years  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  imports  began  to  come  in. 
A  depreciation  in  values  began  and  di.scouragement  pervaded  the  entire 
rural  population.  They  saw  that  their  industry  was  doomed,  but  they  were 
powerless  to  restore  that  safeguard  which  had  been  destroyed.  A  few 
meetings  were  held  in  their  interests,  but  the  cotton  manufacturers  had 
such  absolute  control  of  the  politics  of  the  country,  that  nothing  could  be 
done.  The  situation  is  concisely  .stated  in  a  .speech  by  Mr.  Butt,  Q.  C,  at 
a  protectionists'  meeting  held  in  Derby  Lane,  April  29,  1851,  in  which 
he  said  : 

The  object  of  the  free  traders  was  the  extermination  of  the  tenant  farmers  of 
England.  It  was  not  a  landlord's  question.  The  tenant  farmers  of  England  stood 
between  the  landlords  and  ruin.  Ruin  could  not  reach  the  landlord  till  the  tenant 
farmers  and  the  agricultural  laborers  were  both  destroyed.  No  less  than  230,000  of 
small  farmers  had  left  Ireland.  It  was  much  easier  to  destroy  a  man  with  thirty  acres, 
than  a  man  with  five  hundred;  but  the  process  that  had  ruined  these  230, 000  would, 
if  free  trade  were  not  reversed,  reach  the  farmers  of  England  too.' 

During  the  years  which  followed  the  exchange  of  manufactured  goods 
for  the  farm  produce  of  other  countries  increased.  The  manufacturers 
were  prospering,  but  the  farmers  were  being  ruined.  The  real  purpose 
for  which  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  was  organized  was  being  accom- 
plished. Prosperity  in  Manchester  meant  immense  suifering  in  the  rural 
homes.  No  excuse  or  apology  has  been  offered  by  Mr.  Cobden  or  his 
associates  to  the  people  whom  they  deceived  and  ruined.  They  have  never 
intimated  that  free  trade  in  its  effect  on  agriculture  turned  out  differently 
from  what  they  expected.  They  have  never  so  much  as  said  that  they 
were  mistaken  when  they  were  riding  the  rural  districts  and  telling  the 
farmers  that  they  would  not  suffer  from  foreign  competition.  While  one 
can  have  respect  for  Colonel  Thompson,  who  told  the  agriculturists  that 
the  countr>'  could  get  along  without  them,  the  speeches  of  Cobden  and  the 

1  History  of  Free  Trade  Movement  iu  England.        "-  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  II.,  p.  375. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


statement  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  made  in  the  pamphlets  which  it 
circulated  among  the  tenant  farmers,  remain  a  blot  on  the  reputation  of 
those  men  who  by  deliberate  falsehood  perpetrated  the  grossest  frauds  on 
an  industrious  and  confiding  people.  The  persistent  effort  on  the  part  of 
members  of  the  Cobden  Club  to  surround  that  group  of  men  with  an 
atmosphere  of  lofty  moralit}^  has  vested  the  cause  of  free  trade  with  a 
character  to  which  it  has  never  been  entitled.  No  sooner  had  complaints 
arisen  among  the  farmers  of  England  than  Richard  Cobden  began  anew 
to  invent  remedies  for  their  distress.  This  species  of  ingenuity  has  ever 
been  one  of  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  free  trade  agitator. 

At  a  meeting  held  at  Aylesburj',  January  9,  1853,  Mr.  Cobden 
attempted  to  point  out  a  remedy  by  advising  a  reduction  of  rents,  under 
which  the  loss  would  fall  on  the  landlord.     He  said  : 

And  if  the  farmers  cannot  carry  on  their  business,  it  is  because  they  pay  too 
high  rent  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  their  produce.  I  do  not  say  that  in  man}- 
cases  the  rents  of  the  landlords  might  not  be  excessive,  provided  the  land  were 
cultivated  to  its  full  capacity.  But  that  it  cannot  be  donewithout  sufficient  capital, 
and  that  sufficient  capital  cannot  be  applied  without  sufficient  security,  or  without 
a  tenant  right,  or  a  lease  amounting  to  tenant  right.  We  want  to  bring  the  land 
owner  and  the  tenant  together,  to  confront  them  in  their  separate  capacity  as  buyers 
and  sellers ;  so  that  they  might  deal  together  as  other  men  of  business,  and  not  allow 
themselves  to  play  this  comedy  of  farmers  and  landlords  crying  about  for  protection, 
and  saying  that  they  are  rowing  in  the  same  boat,  when  in  fact  they  are  rowing  in 
two  boats  in  opposite  directions. 

Fertile  in  his  resources  for  inventing  remedies  for  the  terrible  calamity 
he  had  brought  upon  his  countrymen,  his  statement  at  this  time  was  no  less 
deceptive  and  disingenuous  than  his  utterances  to  the  farmers  beforetheCorn 
Laws  were  repealed.  He  then  denounced  every  one  who  predicted  the 
ruin  of  the  agrictilturalists  as  "gross  humbugs,"  when  he  told  them  that 
' '  free  trade  will  make  the  agriculttirist  of  this  country  capable  of  compet- 
ing with  the  farmers  of  any  part  of  the  world."  Now  he  tells  them  that 
the  land  must  be  "  cultivated  to  its  full  capacity , "  but  that  "  this  cannot  be 
done  without  .sufficient  capital  and  that  sufficient  capital  cannot  be  applied 
without  sufficient  security,  or  without  a  tenant  right,  or  a  lease  amounting 
to  a  tenant  right."  He  comes  now  to  a  vital  proposition,  the  tenant  must 
acquire  such  an  ownership  in  the  soil  of  the  realm,  that  if  he  desires  to 
borrow  capital  for  his  business  he  will  have  something  tangible  to  offer  as 
security.  But  no  effort  was  made  on  the  part  of  the  free  traders  to  abolish 
the  system  of  land  tenures  by  which  the  soil  of  the  country^  was  held  by  a 
few  individuals,  tied  up  and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  possibility  of  a  farmer's  becoming  the  owner  of  a 
small  piece  of  land.  Not  one  step  was  ever  taken  by  the  free  traders  of 
England  to  make  the  land  of  the  country  alodial.  Richard  Cobden  well 
knew  the  situation  of  the  farmer— that  with  a  decaying  bu.siness,  with  his 
property  depreciating  in  value,  security  on  personal  property  would  not  be 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


taken.  The  result  was  inevitable.  The  farmer  must  be  driven  out.  The 
man  with  a  lease  of  thirty  acres,  as  Mr.  Butt  said,  can  more  easily  be 
ruined  than  a  man  with  five  hundred  acres. 

After  the  Corn  I^aws  were  repealed,  and  the  work  of  the  League 
accomplished,  it  then  threw  ofif  the  mask  and  boldly  announced  to  the  world 
that  if  the  farmers  of  England  were  unable  to  survive  the  competition  of 
foreign  countries,  it  was  no  fault  of  free  trade,  and  they  must  perish. 
They  had  either  obtained  the  influence  of  tenant  farmers  or  had  allayed 
their  active  opposition  by  false  pretences,  fallacies  and  deceptive  arguments. 
They  had  told  them  that  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  was  necessarj'  to 
save  the  farmer  himself  from  ultimate  ruin,  that  free  trade  would  raise  the 
price  of  farm  produce  and  that  England  could  compete  with  any  country 
in  the  world.  In  1854,  when  the  farmers  of  England  were  crying  out  against 
the  impending  ruin,  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  comes  to  the  rescue  again, 
but  with  an  entirely  different  argument.  It  now  announces  a  great, 
scientific  truth,  a  fundamental  principle  of  ecotiottiics ,  a  laiv  of  nature,  as 
will  appear  from  the  following  quotation  taken  from  ' '  The  Charter  of  the 
Nations, ' '  in  which  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  gave  to  the  world  its  review 
of  one  phase  of  the  free  trade  movement : 

In  order  to  make  out  the  beneficial  influence  of  free  trade  on  our  agricultural 
interests,  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  prove  that  agriculture  is  at  the  present 
moment  as  profitable  to  those  who  are  engaged  in  it  as  it  was  under  our  protective 
system.  The  permanent  utility  of  the  change  to  agriculture  itself,  may  render 
inevitable  a  temporary  diminution  of  profits.  Measures  which  are  in  the  highest 
degree  beneficial  to  the  bulk  of  a  population,  va&y  for  a  time  be  anything  but  bene- 
ficial to  particular  sections  of  it.  The  immediate  effect  of  free  trade  upon  inter- 
ests formerly  protected,  is  to  test  their  real  value  to  the  nation,  to  ascertain  whether 
they  can  profitably  support  themselves,  without  receiving  their  accustomed  subsidy 
from  the  pockets  of  the  people.  As  soon  as  they  are  exposed  to  competition,  the 
persons  engaged  in  them  are  obliged  to  tax  their  utmost  resources,  and  apply  to  their 
development  the  highest  amount  of  skill  and  energy.  For  a  time  the  struggle  may 
be  hard,  and  less  profits  maybe  realized  than  on  the  old  system,  but  if  in  a  national 
point  of  view,  such  interests  are  worth  cultivating ,  the  foreigner  will  soon  be  driven 
from  the  market.  If  they  are  not  worth  cultivating  they  will  soon  become  extinct, 
?ior  is  there  any  reason,  in  such  circumstances,  to  wish  their  perpetuation.  Our 
agriculture  isjiistnozv  undergoing  this  ivholesome  ordeal,  after  ages  of  prescriptive 
right  our  farmers  have  to  contend  for  existence.  That  command  of  the  British 
market  which  they  have  hitherto  secured  by  unjust  laws,  they  must  now  secure  by 
superior  energy,  or  abandon  it  to  their  rivals.  But  free  trade  is  not  to  be  blamed 
for  this  struggle.  If  smaller  profits  are  for  a  time  the  result,  it  is  not  to  be  imputed 
as  a  fault  to  the  change  which  has  been  brought  about  in  our  commercial  system.  1 

The  organization  of  farmers'  clubs,  and  schools  are  recommended  in 
which  their  sons  may  receive  instruction  "in  vegetable  anatomy,  phys- 
iology, the  physical  properties  of  the  soil,  the  action  of  ameliorators, 
stimulants  and  manures."  The  use  of  machinery,  scientific  methods  and 
numerous  other  receipts  for  restoring  life  to  the  agriculture  of  the  countrj' 
■  Pp.  217-19. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


are  suggested.  This  advice  would  have  been  excellent  if  it  had  come 
from  a  different  source,  and  had  been  given  under  different  circumstances. 
The  Anti-Corn  Law  League  knew  from  the  very  inception  of  the  move- 
ment that  free  trade  in  the  products  of  the  farm  would  ruin  and  ultimately 
wipe  out  the  agricultural  interests  of  England.  Its  whole  course  and  the 
result  which  followed,  as  will  appear  later,  are  commended  to  the  earnest 
consideration  of  those  farmers  in  the  United  States  to  whom  the  Cobden 
Club  has  been  addressing  circulars  during  the  past  fifteen  years. 

While  it  is  commonly  stated  that  free  trade  was  introduced  into 
England  in  1846,  yet  this  is  true  only  in  part.  Protection  was  with- 
drawn from  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  kingdom,  duties  were 
removed  from  raw  materials,  and  from  the  products  of  the  great  textile, 
iron  and  steel  industries  ;  at  the  same  time,  a  moderate,  and  what  was 
regarded  as  adequate,  protection  was  maintained  in  favor,  of  many  minor 
industries.  The  duties  on  woolen  and  worsted  yams  were  removed  in 
1853,  at  which  time  a  further  reduction  of  the  tariff  was  made  under  Mr. 
Gladstone.  In  the  debate  upon  the  question  of  the  modifications  in  1853, 
Mr.  Gladstone  said  that,  they  propose  to  abolish  all  duties  on  articles  of 
manufacture,  "except  such  as  are  in  the  last  stage  as  finished  articles,  and 
are  commonly  connected  with  hand  labor  ;  in  regard  to  which  cases,  we 
have  thought  it  more  prudent  and  proper  to  proceed  in  the  mode  not  of 
abolition,  but  of  reduction. "  ^  A  duty  equivalent  to  ten  per  cent  ad  valorem 
was  continued  on  the  following  articles,  with  the  exception  of  silk,  which 
was  15  per  cent,  until  1861  and  1862,  when  all  duties  were  swept 
away  and  the  work  which  was  begun  by  Cobden  and  his  associates,  and 
carried  through  parliament  under  the  nominal  leadership  of  Peel,  was 
consummated  by  Mr.  Gladstone  : 

Articles  Wholly  Manufactured. 


Silk,  not  made  up. 

Cotton,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up. 

Wool,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up. 

Flax,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up. 

Iron  and  steel,  wrought  or  unwrought 

Brass  and  copper. 

China  and  earthenware. 

Glass. 

Opera  glasses,  etc. 

Paper. 

Extracts  and  essences. 

Bronze. 

Coil  rope,  twine  and  strands. 

Copper  plates. 

Copper  wire. 

Feathers,  ostrich,  dressed. 

Artificial  flowers. 

1  Mr.  Gladstone's  Budget 


Beer  and  ale. 
Clocks. 
Watches. 

Canes,  umbrellas,  parasols,  etc. 
Candles. 

Hats  and  bonnets. 
Embroidery  and  needlework. 
Leather,  manufactures  of  boots,  shoes. 
Musical  instruments. 
Chemical  oils,  essential  and  perfumed. 
Japanned  or  lacquered  ware. 
Lace. 

Cork,  ready  made. 
Cotton  fringes. 
Cotton  gloves,  or  of  thread. 
Stockings  of  cotton  thread. 
Socks,  or  half  hose,  of  cotton  or  thread. 
Speccli,  April  iS,  1853,  revised  edition. 


FEEE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


Gutta   percha,  manufactures  of,    such  as  Cambric  handkerchiefs,  hemmed,  or  hand- 
bands,  shirts,  soles  and  tubing.  kerchiefs  not  hemmed. 

Articles  made  of  linen,  wholly  or  partly  Lace  thread, 

made  up.  Soap. 

Starch. 

Articles  Partially  Manufactured. 


Wood  and  timber,  sawed  and  split. 

Olive  oil. 

Plaiting. 

Iron  in  bars,  unwrought. 

Palm  oil. 


Gum  shellac  and  lac  dye. 

Verdigris. 

Woolen  and  worsted  yam. 

Silk  thrown. 

Drawback  on  silk  manufactures  exported. 


Hides,  tanned,  tawed,  curried  or  dressed.     Other  articles. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  it  was  intended  to  shield  the  industries 
represented  by  the  foregoing  list  of  articles  from  competition  until  they 
became  strong  enough  to  hold  their  own;  but  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  free  trade  movement  was  started,  and  the  object  which  it  had 
in  view  would  not  permit  a  half-way  policy  of  this  character.  The  English 
manufacturers,  immediately  after  the  legislation  of  1846,  entered  upon  a 
crusade  to  convert  the  people  of  other  nations  to  the  doctrine  of  free  trade. 
To  break  down  the  tariff  barriers  which  excluded  their  great  textile  fabrics 
from  the  United  States  and  the  Continent  was  the  great  central  purpo.se 
which  brought  into  existence  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League,  and  induced 
every  step  which  had  been  taken  in  the  direction  of  free  trade.  They  were 
at  once,  however,  met  with  the  charge  that  they  had  not  adopted  free  trade, 
that  they  were  .still  continuing  protection  to  all  those  industries  which  might 
be  injured  by  free  competition.  The  answer  that  the  duties  upon  this  class 
of  articles  were  levied  wholly  for  revenue  purposes  was  not  sufficient,  inas 
much  as  the  total  revenue  derived  from  such  sources  was  very  insignificant 
The  revenue  derived  from  customs  duties  in  1859  was  as  follows  : 


Articles  in  a  raw  state  to  be  used  in  manufactures, $ 

Articles  partially  manufactured, 

Articles  wholly  manufactured 

Articles  not  properly  belonging  to  either  of  the  foregoing  classes,    .    . 
Articles  of  food,  spirits,  etc.  : 

Sugar 

Molasses, 

Tobacco  and  snuff,  , 

Tea, 

Wines 

Rum 

Brandy 

Other  spirits 

Coffee 

Butter 

Carried  forward, Ji 


,528,395 
,076,495 
,032,575 
139,120 

1,685,050 
793, 120 
,867  335 
,035.945 
1,210,815 
■,301,885 
.,901,665 
205, 630 

!,  146,670 
522,940 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Free  trade 
let:islati07L 
completed. 


Brought  forward 1109,671,055 

Fruit,   including  nuts, 1,292,065 

Currants,      1,898,660 

Corn  (breadstuffs) 2,637,715 

Cheese, 248,280 

Other  articles, 998,275 

Total  on  articles  of  food,  spirits,  etc., 1116,746,050 

Total  revenue  from  customs  duties  in  1S59, 123,522,635 

Of  the  $1,528,395  collected  from  duties  on  articles  in  a  raw  state  to 

be  used  in  manufactures,  nearlj'  the  whole  sum,  to  wit:    $1,150,790  was 

collected  from  the  imports  of  timber,  not  sawed  or  split.     $377,325  of  the 

remainder  was  collected  from  the  import  of  tallow,  leaving  only  $280  from 

other  articles. 

Of    the   $2,076,495    collected    from    articles    partly    manufactured, 

$1,985,115  came  firom  wood  and  timber  sawed  or  split. 

Of  the  $3,032,575  collected  from  duties  on  fully  manufactured  articles, 

over  one-half,    or   $1,537,800,    was  derived  from  duties  on  silk   goods. 

The  other  portion  was  divided  between  the  several  articles  upon  which 

duties  were  imposed  as  follows  : 

Cotton,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up $      27,275 

Wool,  wholly  or  in  part  made  vip, 19,040 

Flax,  wholly  or  in  part  made  up, 4,  '35 

Iron  and  steel,  wrought  and  unwrought, 8,065 

Brass  and  copper, 7, 785 

China  and  earthenware »  18,525 

Glass 27,205 

Paper 74.885 

Opera  glass, etc., 14. 3°° 

Extracts  and  essences, i,770 

Bronze 6,935 

Beer  and  ale,  .    .        16,640 

Clocks, 44.890 

Watches Si,  335 

Canes,  umbrellas,  parasols,  etc i./So 

Candles,  1,305 

Hats  and  bonnets 6, 155 

Embroidery  and  needlework 47. 815 

Leather, 368,700 

Musical  instruments 61,540 

Chemical  oils,  essential  or  perfumed, 57.675 

Japanned  or  lacquered  ware 1,090 

Lace 22,885 

Other  articles 573.075 

|i,  494. 775 
Silk 1,537.800 

Total 13.032,575 

There  was  no  necessity  then  for  continuing  the  duties  on   manu- 
factured and  partly  manufactured  articles  for  the  purpose  of  providing 


FREE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


revenue.  The  comparatively  small  sum  derived  from  these  sources  could 
easily  be  obtained  by  increasing  the  duties  on  food  products,  from  which 
$116,746,050  was  already  collected.  Only  slight  changes  were  necessarj' 
in  order  to  reach  a  purely  revenue  basis  and  subject  every  industry  to  the 
influence  of  free  competition.  The  free  trade  element  of  England  had 
reached  a  point  in  its  efforts  to  extend  the  proposed  policy  to  other 
countries,  at  which  it  became  absolutely  necessary  to  take  the  lead  and  go 
to  the  full  extent  of  applying  its  principles  to  every  home  industry.  By 
1862  this  was  virtually  accomplished.  In  i860  a  Reciprocity  Treaty  was 
made  between  England  and  France,  under  which  it  was  agreed  that  English 
manufactures  should  be  admitted  into  France  under  ad  valorem  duties  not 
exceeding  30  per  cent,  while  French  silks  were  to  be  admitted  into  England 
free  of  duty.  This  treaty  was  negotiated  by  Richard  Cobden  with  Napoleon 
III.,  who  was  in  England  from  1837  to  1839,  and  had  imbibed  some  free 
trade  notions  which  were  favorable  to  Cobden's  plan. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  French  Treaty,  parliament  was  induced  to 
take  the  final  steps  in  the  free  trade  legislation  of  the  country.  In  1861 
duties  on  butter,  cheese,  silk  manufactures,  etc.,  were  repealed.  In  1862 
paper  and  other  articles  were  put  on  the  free  list.  In  1867  duties  on 
pepper,  wood  and  timber  were  repealed,  and  in  1870  the  insignificant 
duties  which  had  been  continued  on  corn  and  flour,  were  removed.  In 
1871  duties  on  sugar  and  molasses  were  reduced  and  were  finally  repealed 
in  1875.  It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  through  in  detail  the  various 
changes  which  were  made  in  the  customs  tariflF  by  parliament  after  i860. 
While  slight  changes  have  been  made  in  readjusting,  reducing,  or  increas- 
ing duties,  the  general  policy  as  it  was  perfected  in  1862,  has  remained 
unchanged  to  the  present  time. 

The  following  table  shows  the  customs  tariff  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
as  published  by  the  International  Customs  Journal,  printed  by  the  Inter- 
national Customs  Tariff  Bureau,  in  1894:' 


Unit. 

Rates  of  Duty. 

English. 

Equal  to— 

£■  s.  d. 

I 

Cocoa, 

Per  pound  .    .    . 

001 

jSo.02 

2 

Husks  and  shells 

Per  cwt   .... 

020 

•49 

Cocoa  or  chocolate,  ground,  pre- 
pared or  in  any  way  manufac- 

tured  

Per  pound  .    .    . 

002 

.04 

4 

CoflFee,  raw 

Per  cwt  ...    . 

0  14     0 

3-41 

5 

Kiln    dried,  roasted   or   ground 
Chicory  : 

Per  pound  .   .    . 

002 

.04 

h 

Per  cwt   .... 

0  13    3 

3.22 

7 

Roasted  or  ground, 

Per  pound  .    .    . 

.04 

S 

Chicory  (or  other  vegetable  sub- 
stances)   and    coffee,    roasted 

and  ground,  mixed 

.    .   do    .    .    .    . 

002 

.04 

I  Bulletin  No.  i,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  p.  14. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


"{ 


Fruit,  dried  : 

Currants, 

Figs  and  fig  cake,  plums,  prunes 

and  raisins 

Tea, 


lOO 


Tobacco : 

Unmanufactured,     stemmed 
uustemraed  — 

Containing     in      every 
pounds  weight  thereof— 
ID  pounds   or  more  of 

moisture, 

Less  than  lo  pounds  of 

moisture, 

Manufactured  — 

Cigars,         

Cavendish  or  negro-head. 
Snuff,    containing   in    every 
loo pounds  weight  thereof : 
More  than  13  pounds  of 

moisture, 

Not  more  than  13  pounds 

of  moisture, 

Other  manufactured  tobacco  and 
cavendish  or  negro-head  man- 
ufactured in  bond  from  unman- 
ufactured tobacco. 
Wine  : 

Not  exceeding  30°  of  proof  spirit 
Exceeding  30°  but  not  exceeding 

42°  of  proof  spirit,       

And  for  every  degree,  a,  or  part 
of  a  degree  beyond  the  highest 
above  charged    an   additional 

duty,  

Sparkling  wine  : 

Imported  in  bottles,  b, 

Imported    in   bottles  when   the 
market  value  is  proved  not  to 
exceed  15  shillings  per  gallon. 
To  countervail  excise  duty  upon  Brit- 
ish beer  : 

Beer  and  ale,  the  worts  of  which 
were  before  fermentation  of  a 
specific  gravity  of  1,055°  (and 
so  on  in  proportion  for  an}-  dif- 
ference in  gravity),      


Beer  called  mum,  spruce  or  black 
beer,  and  beer  called  Berlin  white 
beer,  and  other  preparations, 
whether  fermented  or  not  fer- 
mented, of  a  character  similar  to 
minn,  spruce,  or  black  beer,  the 
worts  of  which  were,  before  fer- 
mentation, of  a  specific  gravity — 

Not  exceeding  1,215° 

Exceeding  1,215° 


Rates  of  Duty. 


.    .    do     . 
Per  pound 


Per  gallo 
.   .   do 


Per  barrel  of  36 
gallons. 


■£.  s.  d. 


3 

3    6 
5 


3  9 

4  6 


003 
020 


FSEE  TRADE  LEGISLATIOX. 


duty  upon  Brit- 


Spirits  or  strong  waters— 

For  every  gallon  computed  at 
hydrometer  proof  of  spirits 
of  any   description   (except 
perfumed  spirits),  including 
naphtha  or  methylic  alcohol, 
purified  so  as  to  be  potable  ; 
and   mixtures  and  prepara- 
tions containing  spirits, 
For  every  gallon  of  perfumed 
spirits,     ...  .    .    .    . 

Liquors,  cordials  or  other  pre- 
parations containing  spirits 
in  bottle,  entered  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  indicate  that 
the   strength    is   not    to   be 

tested, 

Chloroform,       

Chloral  hydrate, 

Collodion 

Ether,  acetic 

Ether,  butyric, 

Ether,  sulphuric, 

Ethyl,  iodide  of,  

Soap,   transparent,  in   the  manufac- 
ture of  which  spirit  has  been  used. 
To  counter\-ail  stamp  duties  on  Brit- 
ish made  articles  : 

Cards,  playing, 


Per  proof  g 
Per  gallon 


Per  pound  . 
.  .  do  .  . 
Per  gallon  , 
Per  pound 
Per  gallon  . 
.  .  do  .  , 
.    .   do    .    , 


Per  pound  .    .    . 
Per  dozen  packs. 


English. 

Equal  to- 

A.    s.  d. 

O    ID    lO 

f2.63 

o  17    3 

4.20 

0  14    8 
0    3     I 

0  I     3 

1  5    0 
0     I  10 
0  15    s 

0  13     7 

3-57 
.75 
■30 

•45 
3.81 
6.36 

3-35 

003 

.06 

0    3    9 

•91 

a  The  word  "degree"  does  not  include  fractions  of  the  next  higher  degree.  Wine 
includes  lees  of  wine. 

b  The  duties  on  sparkling  wines  are  in  addition  to  the  duties  in  respect  of  alcoholic 
strength. 

Amount  of  the  Imperial  Revenue  (Exchequer  Receipts)  of  the 
United  Kingdom  under  the  Principal  Heads  Thereof. 
The  revenue  derived  from   duties   on   imports  under  the  foregoing 

schedule  in   1894  (Statistical  Abstract  for  the  United   Kingdom  of  1894, 

page  16)  was  as  follows: 

Customs. 


id  colonial, 


Tea 

Coffee,     .... 
Spirits,  foreign 

Wine 

Tobacco  and  snufF, 

Currants,  raisins  and  dried  fruit. 

Other  imported  articles 

Miscellaneous  receipts, 


117,465,470 

729.925 

20,653,425 

6,050,710 

50.599.760 

1,825,465 

896,320 

172,415 


Total  receipts  from  customs, 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

The  following  sums  were  derived  from  inland  taxation: 

Excise. 

Spirits,    .    .• 175,946,725 

Beer 47,684,740 

Licenses, 1,172,820 

Railways, 1,395,465 

Coffee  mixture,  labels  and  chicory 14,250 

Other  receipts 20,350 

Total  receipts  from  excise  revenues 1126,234,350 

Stamps. 

Deeds  and  other  instruments, 113,200,455 

Probate  duties,      11,815,295 

Estate  duty 6,161,145 

Legacies  and  successions, 19,917, 545 

Life  insurance,      273,975 

Marine  insurance, 695,020 

Bills  of  exchange,  bankers'  notes,  and  composi- 
tion for  duty  on  bills  and  notes,  3,845,640 

Receipts  and  drafts, 5,833,860 

Other  receipts 2,175,230 

Total  receipts  from  stamps $63,918,165 

Miscellaneous. 

Land  tax, IS,  175.000 

House  duty, 7,125,000 

Property  and  income  tax 76,000,000 

Post-office, 52,350,000 

Telegraph  service 12,700  000 

Crown  lands,      ....        2,100,000 

Interest  on  advances  for  local  works  and  on  pur- 
chase money  of  Suez  Canal  shares,  etc 1,093,150 

Fee  and  patent  stamps 4,354,220 

Receipts  by  Civil  Departments,  etc.,      5,934,680 

Total  miscellaneous 166,832,050 

Total  revenue  of  the  United  Kingdom  in  1894,  |455,47S,055 

Amount  of  the  Imperial  Expenditure  (Exchequer  Issues)  of 

THE  United  Kingdom  under  the  Principal  Heads  Thereof. 

National  Debt  Services. 

Interest $80,663,440 

Terminable  Annuities:  Trustee  Savings  Bank  De- 
ficiency Annuity, 31,967,520 

Unfunded  debt, 2,341,525 

Management  of  the  debt §94,555 

New  sinking  fund 9,132,960 

Total $125,000000 

Interest  on  loans, 1,000,000 

Total  for  National  Debt  Services $126,000,000 


FEEE  TRADE  LEGISLATION. 


Civil  List  and  Civil  Administration 

Army,  including  Army  Purchase  Commission,  .    . 

Army  ordnance — factories, 

Navy,  including  Transport  Service 

Annuity  under  "  Indian  Army  Pension  Deficiency 

Act,  1885," 

Naval  Defence  Fund,      

Total  naval  and  military  expenditure,   .... 

Total  expenditure,  excluding  cost  of  collection. 


189,698,500 

1,500 

70,240,000 

750,000 
7,142.855 


1167,832,855 
$392,619,285 


Charges  for  the  Collection  of  the  Revenue. 


Customs,  .... 
Inland  Revenue,  . 

Post-office,  .  -  . 
Telegraph  Service, 
Packet  Service,     . 


14,229,745 

9,125,200 

33,605,000 

13,320,000 

3,6i5,«^ 

Total  expenditure  chargeable  against  revenue,  $456,514,230 

In  order  to  admit  all  manufactured  articles  tree  of  duty  and  to  put 
into  practice  the  policy  of  free  trade,  it  became  necessary  to  resort  to  a 
most  burdensome  and  oppressive  system  of  internal  taxation.  The  taxation 
upon  houses,  lands,  incomes  and  estates  for  the  support  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment, together  with  the  system  which  requires  stamps  to  be  placed  on 
all  legal  documents,  bills  of  exchange,  receipts  and  commercial  paper,  etc., 
is  a  most  extreme  exercise  of  the  taxing  power.  Such  methods  have 
been  resorted  to  in  the  United  States  only  in  times  of  war.  The  $17,000,- 
000  collected  in  duties  on  tea  is  certainly  a  tax  on  the  breakfast  tables  of 
the  people,  while  silks,  embroideries,  Oriental  wares,  diamonds,  jewelry 
and  the  luxuries  consumed  by  the  aristocracy  are  admitted  free  of  duty. 
The  whole  country  is  being  flooded  with  the  manufactured  produce  of  the 
Continent  which,  by  displacing  domestic  productions,  is  undermining 
industries,  throwing  labor  out  of  employment,  reducing  wages,  and  im- 
poverishing the  nation.  English  economists  have  such  exalted  opinions 
upon  the  subject  of  taxation,  and  owe  such  allegiance  to  their  free  trade 
creed,  that  they  are  compelled  to  perpetuate  a  system  of  taxation  to 
which  the  people  of  the  United  States  would  not  submit  for  a  moment, 
excepting  under  the  necessities  arising  in  times  of  war.  The  system  of 
taxation  pursued  is  a  "Tariff  for  revenue  only."  Duties  are  imposed  on 
those  articles  the  like  of  which  cannot  be  produced  in  England,  while 
competing  articles  are  admitted  free. 


CHAPTER   III. 

England  under  Free  Trade  from  1850  to  1874. 

THE  FREEBOOTER'S  SONG. 

Free  !    Free  !    Is  not  the  pirate  free 
To  take  what  he  can  get,  and  keep  what  he  can  hold  ? 
This  is  the  freebooter's  admirable  plea. 
He  sails  in  his  barque  o'er  the  wildly  rolling  sea, 
And  he  plunders  at  his  ease,  and  he  hoards  the  shining  gold. 
Nothing  for  thee, 
And  much  for  me, 
Free  trade  befits  the  free. 

Free  !    Free  !    Come  twaddle  not  to  me 
Of  the  workman's  falling  wage,  or  of  want  and  ruin  nigh. 
Grief's  voices  at  a  distance  make  a  pleasant  harmony 
Is  my  pocket  to  be  filled  ?     Is't  to  be  or  not  to  be  ? 
In  the  dearest  mart  I'll  sell,  in  the  cheapest  mart  I'll  buy. 
Ruin  for  thee, 
The  gains  for  me, 
Free  trade  befits  the  free. 

— Archer  Gurney} 

You  would  fain  sell  canvas  as  well  as  coals,  and  crockerv-  as  well  as  iron  ;  you 
would  take  ever)-  other  nation's  bread  out  of  its  mouth  if  you  could  ;  not  being  able 
to  do  that,  your  ideal  of  life  is  to  stand  in  the  thoroughfares  of  the  world,  like  Ludgate 
apprentices,  screaming  to  every  passerby:  "  What  d'ye  lack?  " — Riiskiti. 

The  student  of  free  trade  theories  and  arguments  should  at  the  outset 
understand  the  purpose  which  Cobden  and  his  associates  had  in  view  when 
the  tariff  pohcy  of  England  was  changed.  The  great  end  in  view  was  to 
make  England  the  manufacturing  centre  ot  the  world,  while  other  coun- 
tries should  be  confined  to  the  production  of  food  .stuffs  and  raw  materials. 
This  is  shown  not  only  by  the  propositions  laid  down  as  the  basis  of  their 
economic  creed,  but  by  the  openly  expressed  declarations  of  many  of  their 
statesmen  and  the  literature  of  the  time.  Lord  Goderich  in  addressing 
the  House  of  Lords,  said  : 

other  nations  knew,  as  well  as  the  noble  lord  opposite,  and  those  who  acted 
with  him,  that  what  we  (the  English)  meant  by  free  trade  was  nothing  more  ncu- 
less  than,  by  means  of  the  great  advantage  we  enjoyed,  to  get  the  monopoly  of  all 
their  markets  for  our  manufactures,  and  to  prevent  them,  cue  and  all,  from  ever 
becoming  manufacturing  nations. 

■  K.lir  Tmiie.Vol    2,  p.  190. 
(198) 


ENGLAND  CNDER  FREE  TliADE. 


The  policy  that  France  acted  on  was  that  of  encouraging  its  native  manufactures, 
and  it  was  a  wise  policy;  because,  if  it  were  freely  to  admit  our  manufactures  it  would 
speedily  be  reduced  to  an  agricultural  nation,  and  therefore  a  poor  nation,  as  all  must 
be  that  depend  exclusively  on  agriculture. 

The  real  pitrpose  of  the  Manchester  School  is  disclosed  by  a  private 
conversation  with  one  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  agitators,  given  by  Mrs.  Trol- 
lope,  mother  of  Anthony  Trollope,  in  her  "  Life  of  Michael  Armstrong." 

She  says : 

His  idea  is — and  I  should  like  to  see  the  man  who  would  venture  to  tell  me  that 
it  was  not  a  glorious  one — his  idea  is,  if  we  could  get  rid  of  our  cursed  Corn  Laws,  the 
whole  of  the  British  dominions  would  soon  be  turned  into  one  noble  collection  of 
workshops.  I  wish  you  could  hear  him  talk;  upon  my  soul,  it's  the  finest  thing  I 
know.  He  says  that  if  his  system  is  carried  out  into  full  action,  as  I  trust  it  will  be 
one  of  these  days,  all  the  grass  left  in  England  will  be  the  parks  and  paddocks  of  the 
capitalists.  Sharpton  will  prove  to  you  as  clearly  as  that  two  and  two  make  four,  that 
the  best  thing  for  the  country  would  be  to  scour  it  from  end  to  end  of  those  confounded 
idle  drones,  the  landed  gentry.  They  must  go  sooner  or  later,  he  says,  if  the  Corn 
Laws  are  done  away  with.  Then  down  goes  the  price  of  bread,  and  down  goes  the 
operative's  wages;  and  what  will  stop  us  then,  doctor?  Don't  you  see?  Isn't  it  as 
plain  as  the  nose  on  j'our  face  that  when  the  agricultural  interest  is  fairly  drummed 
out  of  the  field,  the  day's  our  own  ?  Our  policy  is,  you  must  know,  to  give  out  that 
it  is  the  operatives  who  are  clamoring  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  whereas 
man)-  among  them,  saucy  rogues,  are  as  deep  as  their  betters,  and  know  perfectly  well, 
and  be  hanged  to  'em,  that  our  only  reason  for  trying  to  make  "down  with  the  Corn 
Laivs"  the  popular  cry  is,  that  we  may  whisper  in  their  ears,  "down  with  the  wages  " 
afterward.  Ay,  doctor,  if  we  can  but  manage  this,  England  will  become  the  paradise 
of  manufacturers  ! — the  great  workshop  of  the  world  !  When  strangers  climb  our  chalk 
cliffs  to  get  a  peep  at  us  they  will  see,  at  what  point  they  will,  the  glowing  fires  that 
keep  our  engines  going  illuminating  the  land  from  one  extremity  of  the  island  to  the 
other  !  Then  think  how  we  shall  suck  in — that  is,  we  the  capitalists,  my  man — 
think  how  we  shall  suck  in  gold,  gold,  gold,  from  all  sides.  The  idea  is  perfectly 
magnificent !  The  fat  Flemings  must  give  up  all  hopes  of  ever  getting  their  finical 
flax  to  vie  with  our  cotton  again  !  By  Jove,  if  I  had  my  way,  Crockley,  I'd  turn  France 
and  the  Rhine  into  a  wine  cellar,  Russia  into  a  corn  bin,  and  America,  glorious  Amer- 
ica, north,  south,  east  and  west,  into  a  cotton  plantation.  Then  should  we  not  flourish  ? 
Then  should  we  not  bring  down  the  rascals  to  work  at  our  own  prices,  and  be  thank- 
ful too?  What's  to  stop  us?  Trust  me,  there  is  not  a  finer  humbug  going,  than  just 
making  the  country  believe  that  the  operatives  are  rampant  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws. ' 

The  free  trade  plan  was  well  understood  in  England  at  the  time  of 
the  agitation  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  The  effect  of  free  competi- 
tion, or  free  trade,  upon  the  industries  of  the  United  States  and  other 
nations,  could  only  be  to  build  up  and  perpetuate  a  monopoly  of  the  manu- 
facttiring  of  the  world  in  England.  Speaking  upon  this  subject  Frederick 
Engle,  in  his  "  Condition  of  the  Laboring  Classes,"  in  1844,'  says: 

England  was  to  become  the  "workshop  of  the  world;"  all  other  countries 
were  to  become  for  England  what  Ireland  already  was — markets  for  her  manufactured 

'  Fair-Trade,  Vol.  3.  p.  91.         =P.  12. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


s,  supplying  her  in  return  with  raw  materials  and  food.  England  the  great  manu- 
facturing centre  of  an  agricultural  world,  with  an  ever-  increasing  number  of  corn 
d  cotton-growing  Irelands  revolving  around  her,  the  industrial  sun.     What  a  glori- 
ous prospect ! 

How,  then,  was  this  end  to  be  attained  ?  Force  could  no  longer  be 
re.sorted  to  as  a  means  of  extending  and  holding  markets.  That  which 
hitherto  had  been  secured  through  the  military  power  of  the  country, 
must  now  be  defended  and  perpetuated  by  peaceful  means.  The  plan 
adopted  for  inducing  their  rivals  to  remove  protective  barriers  and  open 
their  markets  to  the  free  admission  of  English  goods,  has  been  pointed 
out;  but  how  those  markets  could  be  held  under  free  trade,  how  tariff 
barriers  could  be  scaled,  in  case  of  failure  to  secure  universal  free  trade, 
remained  a  vexed  question.  The  new  conditions  which  had  arisen,  the 
new  problems  which  presented  themselves  for  solution,  were  to  be  met 
now  by  new  men.  The  commercial  classes  had  become  all-powerful,  and 
dominated  every  phase  of  the  political  and  industrial  life  of  the  nation. 
Those  statesmen  who  had  guided  the  English  nation  safely  through 
her  most  perilous  hours  in  the  past,  and  who  had  adhered  to  the  policy 
of  preserving  and  fostering  every  interest  in  the  realm,  had  passed 
away.  The  government  was  now  in  the  hands  of  mere  money-grabbers. 
A  combination  of  manufacturers,  inexperienced  in  statesmanship, 
prompted  solely  by  greed  and  avarice,  had  seized  the  reins  of  government 
and  made  the  desire  for  money -getting  purely  and  solely  the  basis  of  the 
nation's  policy.  A  regard  for  the  welfare  of  humanity,  for  the  masses  of 
the  English  people,  was  repudiated  as  a  mere  sentiment  which  formed 
no  part  of  the  real  functions  of  a  government.  A  solicitude  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  masses  was  no  longer  to  trouble  the  minds  of  statesmen. 
Private  gain,  instead  of  public  welfare,  became  the  higher  law.  Those 
functions  of  goverimient  which  had  become  recognized  by  experienced 
jurists  and  .statesmen  for  ages  were  discarded  and  overthrown.  The 
civil  authorities  were  to  perform  no  duties,  excepting  to  preserve  order. 
The  strong  and  powerful  were  turned  loose  upon  the  weak  and  defence- 
less. From  this  time  on  man  was  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  animal  in  a 
jungle,  to  fight  for  his  life,  to  survive  or  perish. 

Free  trade,  free  competition,  must  now  regulate  everything.  A 
farthing  saved  on  a  yard  of  calico  became  of  more  national  importance 
than  a  fair  day's  wages  to  an  artisan.  The  natural  state  of  the  ma.sses 
was  held  to  be  perpetual  want  and  misery,  with  which  governments  had 
no  right  to  interfere.  All  efforts  to  aid  in  the  building  up  of  industries, 
through  protective  legislation,  were  regarded  not  only  as  a  violation  of 
economic  dogmas,  but  obstructions  and  hindrances  to  universal  commer- 
cial dominion.  The  wealth  of  the  few  was  to  be  built  up  at  the  expense 
of  the  many.  Cheap  labor  and  low  wages  were  the  fulcrum  upon  which 
the  manufacturer  was  to  place  his  lever  to  move  the  commercial  world. 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 

The  English  nation  thenceforward  was  to  become  an  oligarchy  of  manu- 
facturers, and  every  other  interest  was  to  be  sacrificed  to  their  welfare. 
The  new  creed  was  based  upon  the  lowest  and  most  vicious  conception  of 
the  obligation  and  dependence  of  man  as  a  member  of  society.  The  higher 
duty  which  man  owes  to  man  was  left  out  of  their  calculation. 

"  Cheapness  "  was  taken  up,  not  only  as  a  weapon  of  defence,  but  as 
an  instrument  of  aggressive  warfare.  By  ' '  cheapness  ' '  their  home  mar- 
ket was  to  be  retained;  by  "cheapness"  foreign  rivals  were  to  be 
destroyed,  and  markets  won  and  held.  Speaking  of  the  manufacturing 
interests,  and  pointing  out  the  means  by  which  a  monopoly  of  markets 
could  be  held,  Mr.  Cobden  .said: 

Upon  the  prosperity,  then,  of  this  interest,  hangs  our  foreign  commerce  .  .  . 
To  what  are  we  indebted  for  this  commerce  ?  We  answer  in  the  name  of  every  manu- 
facturer and  merchant  of  the  kingdom — the  cheapness  alone  of  our  manufactories. 
Are  we  asked,  how  is  that  trade  protected,  and  by  what  means  can  it  be  enlarged? 
The  reply  is  by  the  cheapness  of  our  manufactures.  Is  it  inquired  how  this  mighty 
industry,  upon  which  depends  the  comfort  and  existence  of  the  whole  empire  can 
be  torn  from  us ?  We  rejoin,  only  by  the  greater  cheapness  of  the  manufactures  of 
another  country.' 

In  the  foregoing  statement  Mr.  Cobden  has  announced  the  very 
kernel  of  his  creed.  The  .superior  maojiinery,  more  abundant  capital, 
efficient  artisans,  extensive  trade  relations,  and  means  of  transportation, 
which  enabled  them  to  undersell  all  rivals,  was  recognized  by  the  English 
manufacturers  as  the  key  to  the  whole  question  of  maintaining  their 
commercial  supremacy,  and  extending  their  markets.  This  advantage, 
with  freedom  unrestricted  to  enter  all  foreign  markets,  would  enable  them 
to  suppress  all  rival  industries  then  existing,  and  effectually  to  prevent 
new  ones  from  arising. 

Situated  as  England  was,  with  all  the  territor>'  and  possessions  desir- 
able, her  interests  now  lay  in  defending  and  keeping  what  she  had,  and 
making  the  best  use,  from  a  financial  point  of  view,  of  her  resources. 
Under  every  view  of  the  situation,  peace  was  most  desirable.  As  Mr. 
Cobden  said,  "Men  of  war  to  conquer  colonies,  to  yield  us  a  monopoly  of 
their  trade,  must  now  be  dismissed,  like  many  other  equally  glittering, 
but  false  adages  of  our  forefathers,  and  in  its  place  we  must  substitute  the 
more  homely  but  enduring  maxim — cheapness,  which  will  command  com- 
merce ;  and  what  ever  else  is  needful  will  follow  in  its  train."  Speaking 
of  the  question  further,  he  says:  "America  is  once  more  the  theatre 
upon  which  nations  are  contending  for  mastery-;  it  is  not,  however,  a 
struggle  for  conquest  in  which  the  victor  will  acquire  territorial  dominion 
— the  fight  is  for  commercial  supremacy,  and  the  battle  will  be  won  by 
the  cheapest."  Thus  showing,  "  that  cheapness  and  not  the  cannon  or  the 
sword,  is  the  weapon  through  which  alone  we  possess  and  can  hope  to 
defend  our  extended  commerce. ' ' 

1  Political  Writings,  chap  4. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


The  repeal  of  the  duty  on  agricultural  products  was  favored  for  the 
purpose  of  providing  the  artisans  of  England  with  cheap  bread-stuffs,  and 
hence  enable  them  to  subsist  on  a  lower  wage  rate.  It  was  conceded  that 
meat,  vegetables,  dairy  products,  flour,  and  grain,  could  be  produced 
more  cheaply  in  Russia,  India,  Australia,  South  America,  and  North 
America,  upon  the  virgin  soil  of  new  countries,  than  in  England.  Bj' 
this  their  power  to  produce  cheaply  would  be  augmented  by  reducing  the 
wages  of  their  artisans  and  keeping  them  at  the  lowest  possible  point. 
This  necessity  was  recognized  in  the  first  stages  of  the  free  trade  movement. 

"  Cheapness,"  how  was  it  to  be  acquired  ?  From  a  purely  free  trade 
point  of  view  the  answer  is,  by  every  means  possible.  Machinery,  cheap 
raw  materials,  superior  skill,  inventions,  good  business  methods,  and  the 
power  of  capital,  were  not  the  only  means  by  which  this  great  commercial 
weapon  was  to  be  continually  sharpened.  Things  were  to  be  made  cheap 
and  still  cheaper,  that  every  rival  might  be  undersold.  But  if,  in  order  to 
destroy  competitors,  to  scale  tariff  walls  and  invade  foreign  markets,  it 
became  necessary  to  reduce  the  wages  of  English  artisans,  this,  even, 
though  it  brought  misery  and  degradation  to  the  great  toiling  masses  of 
England,  and  doomed  them  to  a  condition  from  which  they  could  never 
rise  so  long  as  the  warfare  lasted  .and  so  long  as  England  should  exist,  was 
regarded  as  legitimate  and  proper  means  of  making  successful  competition 
more  certain. 

The  vigor  with  which  this  policy  was  entered  upon  immediatelj-  after 
the  adoption  of  free  trade,  exposed  one  of  the  most  infamous  features  of 
the  creed.  The  warfare  of  competition  which  was  waged  against  foreign 
countries,  brought  into  requisition  the  element  of  cheapness,  and  the 
sacrifice  which  the  working  classes  must  make  to  the  cause  of  free  trade. 
It  established  a  most  revolting  system  of  "white  child  slavery"  in 
England.  Without  a  particle  of  moral  sense,  without  a  grain  of  human 
sympathy,  the  advocates  of  free  trade  insisted  on  the  right  of  "free  con- 
tract," the  right  to  buy  labor  at  the  lowest  price,  regardless  of  all 
considerations  of  public  welfare.  Under  the  guise  of  a  natural  inherent 
right  as  a  citizen  to  conduct  his  own  business  in  his  own  way,  they 
insisted  on  the  right  to  fill  the  factories  and  mines  of  England  with 
star\'ed,  stunted,  and  squalid  children  from  seven  to  ten  years  of  age,  with 
women  subjected  to  the  worst  forms  of  labor.  Compelled  to  work  night  and 
day,  until  physically  exhausted  and  ruined,  they  were  to  be  discarded  as 
a  broken  cog  of  a  worn-out  machine,  to  be  replaced  with  another  piece  of 
humanity  to  be  utilized  in  producing  cheap  goods. 

The  Anti-Corn  Law  League  had  no  interest  in  the  workingman  aside 
from  that  economic  interest  embraced  within  their  creed,  which  is  the  same 
interest  they  had  in  their  calico,  their  machinery,  their  houses  and  lots, 
and  their  horses,  /.  c. ,  purely  a  monied  interest.  Beyond  sufficient  food 
and  clothing  to  preserve  health  and  give  vigor  enough  to  do  a  full  day's 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


work,  the. system  of  free  trade  had  no  regard  for  the  workingmaii's  wel- 
fare. Cheap  fabrics  could  not  be  produced  without  cheap  men.  The  pro- 
fessional free  trader  held  that  men  become  cheap  because  there  is  a 
surplus,  because  the  supplj'  exceeds  the  demand,  just  as  iron,  corn  and 
other  commodities  become  cheap. 

The  true  reason  why  men  are  so  cheap  is  that  the  whole  system  of  our  laws  and 
government  rests  upon  the  principle  that  we  should  have  a  reverent  care  of  the  mate- 
rial productions,  and  leave  the  men  to  take  care  of  themselves It  is  not  the 

dressmaker  we  consider,  but  the  dress  ;  it  is  not  the  butcher  whose  well-being  we  care 
for,  but  the  meat ;  it  is  not  the  grocer  whose  moral  and  physical  condition  is  the  object, 
but  the  grocery  ;  it  is  not  the  baker  or  the  bread-eater  whose  sole  satisfaction  we  seek, 
but  the  bread.  Nor  is  it  even  these  goods  for  the  sake  of  their  utility  to  man,  it  is  the 
goods  as  salable  commodities  alone.  The  bread  may  be  adulterated  so  that  it  passes 
and  gets  the  price  of  a  loaf ;  it  is  the  same  with  the  butcher's  meat,  it  may  rot ;  with 
the  gown,  it  maj'  be  of  counterfeit  stuff.  But  it  is  the  trade  in  the  gown,  the  meat, 
the  grocer}-,  the  bread,  etc.,  that  is  the  pbject  of  existence  ;  and  it  is  the  trade  to  which 
our  lawmakers  look,  not  the  tradesman,  the  workingman,  or  the  consumer. — Leader, 
July  12,  1856.' 

This  unrestrained  individualism,  this  free  competition,  this  excessive 
effort  to  make  cheap  goods  at  the  sacrifice  of  flesh  and  blood  and  human 
souls,  soon  brought  out  a  revolt  against  the  fundamental  basis  of  the 
whole  system  of  free  trade.  Lord  Ashley,  one  of  the  most  humane  and 
high-minded  citizens,  was  aroused  to  indignation  when  he  saw  this  feature 
of  the  policy  of  free  trade  put  in  practice.  With  the  united  support  of  the 
laboring  masses  of  England,  and  the  most  enlightened  and  philanthropic 
statesmen,  he  led  a  movement  for  the  enactment  of  laws  for  the  relief  of 
women  and  children  employed  in  factories.  That  system  of  factory  regu- 
lation which  was  placed  on  the  statute  books  of  Great  Britain,  prohibiting 
the  employment  of  women  and  children  during  long  hours,  in  unwhole- 
some places,  met  the  united  opposition  of  the  representatives  of  the  Anti- 
Corn  Law  League,  and  especially  of  Richard  Cobden  and  John  Bright. 
Speaking  of  John  Bright  in  his  oppo.sition  to  this  class  of  legislation,  the 
Fair  Trade  Journal  saj's  :  "All  of  the  immense  resources  of  his  unrivaled 
vocabulary  were  employed  in  the  ser\'ice  of  one  of  the  cruelest  causes  that 
ever  found  defenders  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Facts  and  figures  were 
discarded  in  order  to  prove  that  it  was  right  to  permit  children  of  tender 
years  to  work  for  an  unlimited  number  of  hours  a  day,  at  a  wage  that 
would  barely  provide  them  with  subsistence. ' '  All  interference  on  the 
part  of  the  government  to  restrict  employers  in  overworking  women  and 
children  was  resisted  by  dogmatic  free  traders  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
an  infringement  upon  the  "  Freedom  of  Contract,"  and  an  obstruction  to 
those  means  by  which  the  greatest  cheapness  could  be  secured.  It  was 
through  Mr.  Cobden's  adherence  to  this  principle  that  he  waged  his  war- 
fare against  those  labor  organizations  in  England  which  were  forced  into 

1  Carey's  Social  Science,  p.  229. 


BETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


existence  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  that  downward  tendency  of  wages 
which  was  taking  place  to  secure  the  very  ' '  cheapness ' '  spoken  of  by  him. 
How  shallow  and  meaningless  become  the  utterances  of  John  Bright  and 
Richard  Cobden  against  human  slavery  in  America,  when  we  place  them 
side  by  side  with  their  attitude  toward  the  toiling  masses  of  their  own 
country.  It  is  fully  understood  in  England  that  the  free  trade  movement 
was  started  in  the  interest  of  the  monied  class.  Mr.  Cobden,  speak- 
ing of  his  whole  campaign,  said  :  "It  has  eminently  been  a  middle-class 
agitation."  The  Fair  Trade  Journal,  speaking  upon  this  point  said: 
' '  His  whole  endeavor  was  to  make  that  class  the  ruling  class,  and  he  was 
not  wistful  to  idly  extend  its  favor  to  others  ;  we  have  him  saying,  when 
the  power  of  his  own  special  class  had  been  assured  :  '  I  am  less  sanguine 
than  I  used  to  be  about  the  effects  of  a  wide  extension  of  the  franchise. '  '" 

John  Morley  in  his  life  of  Richard  Cobden,  says,  in  speaking  of  Mr. 
Cobden's  attitude  upon  the  question  of  reducing  the  working  hours  in  fac- 
tories from  twelve  to  ten  hours,  that  Mr.  Cobden  said,  "  I  shall  certainly 
vote  and  speak  against  the  factory  bill."^  When  this  act  became  a  law, 
Mr.  Morley  says  that,  ' '  If  the  factory  law  was  in  one  sense  a  weapon  with 
which  the  country  party'  harassed  the  manufacturers,  it  was  not  long 
before  Cobden  hit  upon  a  plan  for  retaliating."  '' 

The  efforts  which  have  been  made  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade  to 
convey  the  impression  that  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  were  friends  of 
the  laboring  classes,  and  introduced  a  policy  for  their  elevation  and 
improvement,  have  given  to  the  free  trade  cause,  in  certain  quarters,  a 
character  to  which  it  is  not  entitled.  As  Mr.  Cobden  said,  the  whole 
movement  was  conducted  in  the  interest  of  the  middle  classes.  Compre- 
hending the  real  purpose  of  the  movement,  we  are  able  more  fully  to  under- 
stand why  the  tenant  farmers  and  agricultural  laborers  were  marked  for 
destruction.  If  Cobden  and  his  associates  had  been  real  reformers,  enter- 
taining a  desire  to  improve  the  condition  of  the  English  people,  especially 
the  agriculturists,  the  opportunity  was  present  and  urgent.  Land  tenures 
by  which  the  soil  of  the  realm  was  held  by  a  few  individuals,— tied  up 
and  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
masses  from  ownership,  could  have  been  abolished.  This  would  have 
worked  a  genuine  reform.  Every  farmer  could  have  become  the  owner  of 
a  small  piece  of  land,  and  the  rural  population  would  have  become  inde- 
pendent, prosperous  and  contented.  A  change  of  this  character,  however, 
was  not  conceived  by  the  free  trade  reformers  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  the 
manufacturers.  They  were  not  seeking  to  bring  about  conditions  which 
would  make  the  masses  more  independent  and  self-reliant.  They  were  not 
seeking  to  open  new  fields  of  employment,  by  which  the  laboring  classes 
would  become  less  dependent  on  the  cotton  barons  of  Manchester.  Sub- 
servient, dependent,  low-priced  labor,  was  the  comer-stone  upon  which  the 

1  Vol.  Ill,  p.  777.        '  p.  56.        »  p.  44,  also  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  III.,  p.  778. 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


whole  fabric  of  free  trade  rested.  This  could  not  be  secured,  and  the 
workingmen  of  England  could  not  be  reduced  to  that  economic  condition 
bj'  which  they  would  become  the  most  useful  tqols  for  the  English  manu- 
facturers, so  long  as  it  was  possible  for  them  to  live  upon  the  land. 
By  flooding  England  with  the  agricultural  produce  of  foreign  countries, 
by  making  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  unprofitable,  the  free  trade  plan  could 
more  easily  be  accomplished.  By  driving  them  into  the  cities,  over-crowd- 
ing industrial  centres,  and  making  labor  abundant,  the  whole  industrial 
population  would  be  plunged  into  such  a  fight  for  places,  such  a  shuffle 
and  struggle  for  existence,  that  wages  would  be  reduced  to  that  ' '  natural 
level ' '  so  much  talked  about  by  free  trade  economists,  and  so  necessary  to 
secure  that  "  cheapness  "  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Cobden.  Before  pointing  out 
the  disastrous  results  which  have  followed  the  adoption  of  the  policy  of 
free  trade,  it  will  be  well  to  mention  some  of  the  practical  business  propo- 
sitions which  formed  the  basis  of  the  new  theory.  The  English  people 
relied  upon  the  prophecies  which  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  put 
forth  when  they  urged  parliament  to  abandon  that  system  under  which 
the  greatness  of  the  country-  had  been  secured.  To  buy  where  one 
can  buy  the  cheapest,  and  to  sell  where  he  can  get  the  biggest  price, 
was  asserted  not  only  as  a  natural  individual  political  right,  but  as  a 
sound  principle  of  industrial  development,  to  be  practiced  by  all  nations. 
It  is  through  this  proposition  that  the  most  specious  plea  has  been 
made  to  the  consumers  and  producers  of  the  world.  It  should,  however, 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  its  application  to  the  conditions  existing 
in  England  at  the  time  it  was  enunciated.  Eike  other  propositions 
emanating  from  this  source,  it  fits  in  and  forms  a  part  of  that  com- 
mercial policy  of  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  of  secfuring  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  English  manufacturers.  In  the  first  place,  what  did  they 
propose  to  buy  cheap?  Not  manufactured  goods.  They  were  to  be 
produced  in  England,  and  sold  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  It  was  to  buy 
cheap  what  they  were  compelled  to  purchase  of  other  countries,  and  to 
sell  at  a  high  price  everything  produced  in  English  factories;  to  buy 
American  cotton  at  the  lowest  possible  figure,  convert  it  into  fabrics,  and 
sell  it  again  to  the  American  people,  with  the  profits,  labor  and  freight 
charges  of  Englishmen  added.  The  wool  of  Australia  was  to  be  treated 
in  the  same  way.  The  raw  materials  of  all  countries  were  to  be  made 
profitable  to  English  manufacturers,  by  buying  them  cheap  and  selling 
them  dear.  Whatever  England  had  to  buy  was  to  be  bought  cheap. 
Whatever  she  had  to  sell  was  to  be  sold  dear.  The  United  States  was  to 
be  converted  into  an  agricultural  countrj'.  The  produce  of  its  farms  was 
to  be  sold  in  England  cheap,  but  English  manufactures  were  to  be  pur- 
chased by  the  American  people  at  high  prices.  The  surplus  farm  products 
of  all  countries  were  to  be  brought  into  competition  in  England,  thrown 
upon  a  glutted  market,  and  sold  at  prices  to  be  fixed  in  England.     The 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


more  extensive  agriculture  became  in  foreign  countries,  the  greater  the 
surplus  would  be  each  year  to  depress  prices.  This  condition,  favorable  to 
Englishmen,  would  also  be  increased  by  restricting  the  home  markets  for 
farm  produce. 

A  magnificent  scheme,  indeed,  for  England  !  To  this  system  of 
plunder  has  been  given  the  name  of  "  Freedom  of  Contract."  The  con- 
ditions under  which  the  people  of  other  countries  were  asked  to  accept 
this  system  gave  to  England  such  an  advantage  in  imposing  terms,  fixing 
prices  both  ways,  that  there  could  be  no  "  freedom  ' '  about  it  on  the  part 
of  the  people  with  whom  the  English  manufacturers  proposed  to  deal. 

At  the  time  England  urged  all  nations  to  remove  their  protective 
tariffs  and  join  with  her  in  a  policy  of  free  trade,  the  English  manufac- 
turers were  able  by  force  of  competition  to  destroy  the  industries  of  every 
countrjr  in  the  world.  Competition  based  on  fair  wages  and  profits, 
carried  on  under  the  "  live  and  let  live  "  spirit  is  one  thing,  but  a  compe- 
tition waged  for  the  specific  and  definite  purpose  of  driving  competitors 
out  of  the  business,  closing  rival  factories,  and  completely  supplanting  the 
industries  of  a  country  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  a  monopoly  of  the 
market,  is  a  species  of  warfare  as  destructive  to  the  prosperity  of  a  country 
as  an  invading  army,  and  more  lasting  in  its  disastrous  consequences.  It 
was  this  species  of  warfare  or  competition  which  the  English  manufac- 
turers intended  to  carry  on.  The  sole  purpose  of  bringing  about  the 
removal  of  protective  tariffs  in  the  United  States  and  other  countries, 
was  that  England  might,  by  flooding  markets  with  li&r  wares,  close  all 
their  factories,  and  then  by  a  system  of  underselling  prevent  rival  factories 
from  ever  rising  on  the  ruins  of  the  old,  thus  making  the  monopoly 
of  England  absolute  and  perpetual.  As  soon  as  the  rivals  were  de- 
stroyed prices  could  be  advanced  and  large  profits  secured.  Yes,  says 
the  theoretical  free  trader,  but  as  soon  as  prices  are  raised  suSiciently 
to  secure  large  profits,  capital  will  flow  in  and  competing  industries 
will  be  erected.  Experience  has  proven  that  this  will  not  occur  where 
they  would  be  driven  out  and  milled  by  the  warfare  which  woulil 
immediately  set  in.  It  has  only  been  through  the  shield  of  protective 
tariffs  against  such  destroying  causes,  that  home  industries  have  been 
erected  and  carried  on.  This  was  well  known  to  the  English  manufac- 
turers, and  furnished  the  reason  why  they  desired  the  removal  of  such 
protective  barriers. 

This  fact  is  confirmed  by  the  experience  of  the  English  manufac- 
turers. The  whole  question  of  the  manner  in  which  such  destructive 
competition  was  carried  on,  was  set  forth  in  a  report  of  a  commission  to 
parliament,  in  1854,  as  follows: 

The  laboring  classes  generally,  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of  this  country,  and 
especially  in  the  iron  and  coal  districts,  are  very  little  aware  of  the  extent  to  which 
they  are  often  indebted  for  their  being  employed  at  all  to  the  immense  losses  which 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


their  employers  voluntarily  incur  in  bad  times  in  order  to  destroy  foreign  competition, 
and  to  gain  and  keep  possession  of  foreign  markets.  Authentic  instances  are  well 
known  of  employers  having,  in  such  times,  carried  on  their  works  at  a  loss  amounting 
in  the  aggregate  to  three  or  four  hundred  thousand  pounds  sterling  in  the  course  of 
three  or  four  years.  If  the  efforts  of  those  who  encourage  the  combinations  to  restrict 
the  amount  of  labor  and  to  produce  strikes  were  to  be  successful  for  any  length  of 
time,  the  great  accumulations  of  capital  could  no  longer  be  made  which  enable  a  few 
of  the  most  wealthy  capitalists  to  overwhelm  all  foreign  competition  in  times  of  great 
depression,  and  thus  clear  the  way  for  the  wliole  trade  to  step  in  when  prices  revive, 
and  to  carry  on  a  general  business  before  foreign  capital  can  again  accumulate  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  be  able  to  establish  a  competition  in  prices  with  any  chance  of  success. 
The  large  capitalists  of  this  country  are  the  great  instruments  of  warfare  against  the 
competing  capital  of  foreign  countries,  and  are  the  most  essential  instruments  now 
remaining  by  which  our  manufacturing  supremacy  can  be  maintained;  the  other  ele- 
ments— cheap  labor,  abundance  of  raw  materials,  means  of  communication,  and  skilled 
labor,— being  rapidly  in  process  of  being  equalized.' 

The  ofEcial  character  of  this  report  gives  it  more  weight  than  the 
statements  of  mere  theoretical  writers.  It  is  not  fair  or  equal  competition, 
but  a  system  of  commercial  warfare  to  which  every  nation  must  subject  its 
industries  under  free  trade.  A  nation  whose  manufacturers  are  possessed 
of  such  vast  accumulations  of  capital  that  they  are  able  to  wage  an 
aggressive  warfare  for  a  long  period  of  time,  during  which  profits  are  sur- 
rendered and  losses  sustained,  in  order  to  break  down  the  industries  of  a 
foreign  country-,  may  be  read)^  for  free  trade,  but  that  nation  whose  busi- 
ness men  and  manufacturers  are  not  provided  with  such  weapons,  nmst 
protect  its  industries  from  the  inevitable  and  absolutely  certain  result  of  a 
contest,  carried  on  under  such  conditions.  The  "survival"  in  such  a 
conflict  of  the  ' '  fittest, ' '  simply  means  that  the  party  having  the  largest 
amount  of  capital  is  the  strongest,  and  will  win.  Although  the  important 
part  which  capital  plays  in  the  battle  of  fabrics  is  fully  recognized  and 
understood,  the  theoretical  free  trade  writer  attempts  to  make  it  appear 
that  industries  which  are  unable  to  survive  such  a  conflict,  are  weak  and 
ought  to  perish.  The  part  which  the  vast  accumulations  of  capital  held 
by  the  English  people  would  play  in  conquering  the  world  was  fully 
measured  and  taken   into  account,  when  their  fiscal  policy  was  reversed. 

Mr.  Gladstone,  in  completing  the  work  begun  by  Sir  Robert  Peel, 
regarded  the  vast  wealth  of  the  English  people  as  one  of  the  most  power- 
ful weapons  to  be  used  against  the  competing  capital  of  foreign  countries. 
He  said:  "The  power  of  capital,  skill,  industry,  long-established 
character  and  connections,  sustaining  English  commerce,  bears  up  against 
all  that  has  been  done."  ^  This  was  one  element  of  strength  upon  which 
Sir  Robert  Peel  relied,  in  advocating  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  He 
said:  "  That  we  may  retain  our  manufacturing  pre-eminence,  we  must 
neglect  no  opportunity  of  securing  ourselves  those  advantages  by  which 
that  pre-eminence  can  alone  be  secured.     .     .     .     The  accumulation  of 

1  Bigelow's  Tariff  Question,  p.  41.       2  Remarks  on  Recent  Commercial  Legislation,  p.  61. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


wealth  (that  is,  the  increase  of  capital),  is  one  of  the  chief  means  by  which 
we  can  retain  the  eminence  we  have  so  long  enjoyed."  '  For  more  than  a 
century  the  English  people  had  fully  understood  the  importance  of  capital 
as  a  factor  in  establishing  and  maintaining  the  commercial  supremacy  of 
the  nation.  As  early  as  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Edmund 
Burke,  in  a  debate  on  the  proposed  Commercial  Treaty  with  France, 
said:  "  Our  capital  gives  us  a  superiority  which  enables  us  to  set  all  the 
efforts  of  France  to  rival  our  manufactures  at  defiance.  The  powers  of 
capital  were  irresistible  in  trade  ;  it  domineered,  it  ruled,  it  even  tyran- 
nized, in  the  market ;  it  enticed  the  strong,  and  controlled  the  weak."' 

One  of  the  gravest  errors  committed  by  dogmatic  free  traders  was  the 
assumption  that  ' '  the  fear  of  want  is  the  mainspring  of  exertion. ' '  It  was 
asserted  that  sharp  competition  would  act  as  a  stimulus  to  the  exercise  of 
a  higher  degree  of  skill,  greater  exertion  and  more  economic  methods,  and 
to  develop  to  the  highest  point  the  inventive  genius  and  intellectual  forces 
of  man.  Blinded  by  their  own  conceit,  they  believed  Englishmen  pos- 
sessed superior  power  for  industrial  warfare,  and  hence  were  capa- 
ble, when  put  to  the  test,  of  outstripping  all  rivals.  This  most  flattering 
argument  tickled  the  ears  of  the  artisans  and  manufacturers  alike, 
and  played  no  little  part  in  winning  them  over  to  the  doctrines  of  free 
trade.  This  was  one  of  the  principles  upon  which  they  relied  in  entering 
the  warfare  of  fabrics  under  the  new  fiscal  policy.  They  felt  strong 
enough  to  throw  away  their  shields  and  fight  the  battle  without  them. 
Now,  if  this  were  true  of  Englishmen,  while  it  might  furnish  a  reason  whj' 
they  should  be  willing  to  abandon  protection,  something  which  they 
believed  they  did  not  need,  it  would  certainly  furnish  no  reason  why 
the  Americans,  Frenchmen,  Germans,  and  others  who  were  not  so 
efiicient  as  the  Englishmen,  and  who  were  not  capable  of  being  so  highly 
developed,  should  throw  away  their  shields  also  and  calmly  submit  to 
destruction.  If  the  principle  suggested  should  be  accepted  and  all  the 
potency  claimed  for  it  conceded,  assuming  that  all  are  capable  under 
the  same  stimulus  of  being  developed  to  the  same  degree  of  perfection, 
there  is  still  an  element  which  must  be  considered  ;  that  after  all,  as 
stated  by  Mr.  Cobden,  cheapness  was  the  weapon  which  must  be  relied 
upon  to  conquer  and  hold  markets.  While  eificiency,  skill,  capital  and 
machinery  were  within  the  reach  of  all  civilized  people,  everything  else  be- 
ing equal,  the  question  of  wage  rate  must  still  control  in  the  battle.  It  has 
been  demonstrated  that  one  nation  cannot  pay  40  per  cent  higher  wages  than 
another  nation  and  win  and  hold  markets.  As  early  as  1824,  Mr.  Hus- 
kisson,  in  advising  the  removal  of  duties  on  silk  goods,  said  :  "  Unbind  the 
shackles  in  which  yottr  U7iwise  tenderness  has  C07tfi7ied  it;  permit  it  to  tak-r 
unrestrained  its  own  course;  expose  it  to  the  wholesome  breezes  of  competi- 
tion^ you  give  it  new  life;  retnove  your  oppressive  protection,  the  talent,  the 

1  Hansard,  Third  Series,  Vol.  83,  p.  280.         '  Parliamentary  History,  Vol.  26,  p.  487. 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


goiiiis,  the  cnicrp>isc,  the  capital,  the  industry  of  this  great  people  will  do 
the  rest."  It  was  confidently  expected  that  under  the  stimulating 
' '  breezes  of  free  competition  ' '  the  industries  of  Great  Britain  would  be 
aroused  to  newer  energies,  and  grow  stronger  and  more  independent.  It 
will  be  interesting  when  we  come  to  view  this  proposition  in  the  light 
of  the  evidence  given  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Depression  of  Trade, 
showing  how  it  worked  when  applied  to  actual  practice,  especially  in  its 
relation  to  the  silk  industries  of  the  country. 

The  foregoing  expression  has  fallen  from  the  lips  of  advocates  of  free 
trade  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  as  though  it  was  a  spontaneous 
outburst  of  eloquence  from  a  recent  convert  to  the  cause.  It  has  been 
heralded  throughout  the  world,  and  stands  as  one  of  the  cardinal  maxims 
of  the  Manchester  School.  Before  the  people  of  the  United  States  expose 
their  industries  to  the  stimulating  "breezes  of  competition,"  it  will  be 
well  to  ascertain  how  it  has  worked  on  those  English  industries  which 
ha\-e  been  trying  it  for  the  last  thirty  years.  Running  through  the  evi- 
dence of  the  commission  referred  to,  we  shall  find  conclusive  proofs  that  free 
competition,  instead  of  having  the  effect  claimed  in  free  trade  prophecies, 
has  proven  a  hindrance  to  exertion,  enterprise  and  progress. 

The  following  is  another  proposition  which  was  put  out  by  the  advo- 
cates of  free  trade.     It  was  asserted  that — 

"  //■  a/iv  industry  of  a  coimtry  becomes  in  whole  or  in  part  suppla7ited 
bv  competition,  the  capital  ayid  labor  which  it  had  engaged  would  be  let  loose 
to  find  more  prof  table  employment  a7id  investment  in  some  other  home 
industry." 

This  proposition  is  of  vital  importance.  If  it  is  sound  a  nation  would 
in  part  be  compensated  for  the  loss  of  an  industry  through  competition. 
This  assertion  involves  one  of  the  most  extravagant  assumptions  to  be 
found  in  the  whole  theory  of  free  trade.  It  assumes  that  the  foreign  mar- 
kets for  domestic  products  will  always  be  equal  to  the  productive  capacity 
of  the  country.  For  instance,  if  200,000  artisans  employed  in  the  silk 
industry  were  unable  to  make  silk  goods  as  cheaply  as  they  could  be  made 
in  France,  then  it  would  be  more  profitable  for  the  English  people  to  buy 
those  goods  in  France  at  a  lower  price,  and  instead  of  the  200,000  artisans 
in  the  silk  factories  working  for  eight  or  ten  shillings  a  week  in  order  to 
hold  the  home  market,  they  could  readily  abandon  silk- weaving  and  at 
once  find  employment  in  the  cotton  factories,  or  some  other  industry'  in 
England,  which  would  be  capable  of  resisting  foreign  aggression.  This 
proposition  involved  the  idea  that  as  one  or  more  industries  were  entirely 
destroyed  by  competition,  the  other  industries  would  necessarily  be 
increased  by  the  capital  and  labor  which  had  left  the  less  profitable,  em- 
ployment rushing  into  tho.se  which  remained,  always  assuming  that 
England  would  still  hold  supremacy  in  a  sufficient  number  of  industries  to 
gi\e  employment  to  all  her  artisans.     It  never  occurred  to  Mr.  Cobden  and 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


his  associates  that  there  was  any  danger  of  a  failure  of  this  principle.  It  was 
assumed  that  the  people  of  England  still  and  at  all  times  would  be  enough 
cleverer  than  the  people  of  other  countries  to  prosper  just  as  they  had 
before.  It  never  dawned  upon  them  that  the  time  might  arrive  when  the 
cotton  industry,  the  woolen  industry,  the  iron  and  steel  industry,  the 
linen  industry,  and,  in  fact,  every  other  industry,  would  at  the  same 
time  all  be  subjected  to  the  same  vital  competition;  be  driven  out  of 
neutral  markets,  undermined,  crippled,  and  their  progress  arrested  by  the 
sale  of  competing  goods  at  home.  Yet  this  is  precisely  what  has  occurred 
and  what  is  now  occurring  in  England.  The  great  problem  which  the 
English  people  are  now  compelled  to  face  is  not  the  fact  that  they  can  buy 
bread-stuffs,  silks  and  a  few  manufactured  articles  cheaper  in  other 
countries  than  they  can  be  produced  in  England,  but  that  everything 
that  is  made  by  the  hand  of  man  can  be  produced  so  cheaply  on  the  Con- 
tinent of  Europe  that  the  only  way  English  factories  can  be  kept  running, 
is  by  reducing  profits  to  a  minimum  and  wages  to  a  starvation  point. 
The  exercise  of  great  economy  in  production  has  become  a  necessity  as  a 
matter  of  defence  at  home. 

Another  proposition  urged  by  free  traders  was,  that  ' '  no  harm  conies 
to  a  nation  if  the  goods  are  bought  abroad  ;  it  must  sell  as  much  as  it  buys, 
for  goods  are  bought,  not  really  with  the  intermediate  instrument  money, 
but  with  goods  given  in  exchange  and  sent  abroad.'"  It  was  known  as  the 
' '  goods  for  goods  theory. ' '  If  this  were  true  a  country  would  sell  no  more 
than  it  buys,  consequently  as  its  purchases  increased  or  declined,  its  sales 
would  increase  or  diminish  in  like  proportion.  For  every  thousand  dollars' 
worth  of  goods  imported  into  England  it  was  claimed  that  another  thou.sand 
dollars'  worth  of  some  other  kind  of  goods  must  be  made  in  England  to  give 
in  exchange  for  the  import .  Hence,  such  imports  create  a  demand  for  goods 
to  be  made  in  English  factories.  When  this  proposition  was  announced 
the  English  people  were  believed  to  be  capable  of  fully  supplying  the  home 
demand  from  their  own  factories.  It  was  not  contemplated  that  competing 
imports  would,  to  any  extent,  ever  displace  domestic  production.  Hence, 
the  proposition  in  its  application  to  the  conditions  existing  in  England  at 
the  time  the  policy  of  free  trade  was  adopted,  involved  simply  the  exchange 
of  manufactured  goods  for  raw  materials  and  those  farm  products,  the  like 
of  which  could  not  be  produced  in  England  ("the  advocates  of  free  trade 
placing  agricultural  products  in  the  same  category  as  raw  materials). 
The  exchange  of  manufactured  goods  for  manufactured  goods  was  not 
involved  in  this  proposition,  because  it  was  not  contemplated  that  the 
English  people  would  be  compelled  to  abandon  any  domestic  manufactur- 
ing \inder  the  operation  of  free  trade. 

The  experience  of  England  for  two  centuries  had  disproved  the 
proposition  last  stated.     The  balance  of  trade  had  been  in  her  favor  since 

'  Letter  of  Bouamy  Price  to  Fair  Trade  Banquet  May  i6,  1SS7. 


EXGLAXD   UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


the  earh'  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  it  is  diiEcult  to  comprehend 
b.ow,  in  the  face  of  the  experience  of  nations,  free  trade  economists  could 
have  announced  a  proposition  so  absolutely  fallacious  and  contrary  to  the 
experience  ofmankind.  It,  however,  was  advanced  to  allay  the  fears  of 
thosepeopleof  other  countries  to  whom  the  English  manufacturers  addressed 
their  free  trade  literature.  It  has  been  persistently  urged  that  if  the  United 
States  would  abandon  her  protective  tariffs,  she  would  not  suffer  from 
large  purchases  of  manufactured  goods  from  England,  because  the  English 
people  would  take  in  payment  therefor,  agricultural  products,  and  hence 
the  same  capital  and  labor  which  would  have  been  employed  in  the  pro- 
duction of  the  manufactured  articles,  had  they  been  made  in  the  United 
States,  would  be  engaged  in  producing  the  farm  products  exchanged. 
The  inducement  involved  in  this  proposition  has  not  only  been  held  out  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  but  to  every  agricultural  region  on  the  face 
of  the  globe.  The  advantage  which  England  would-  hold  under  the  opera- 
tion of  free  trade  was  well  known.  Her  productive  capacity  had  become  so 
great  that,  with  the  use  of  machinery,  the  labor  of  one  man  in  England,  in 
converting  raw  materials  into  finished  products,  was  equivalent  to  the  labor 
of  a  great  many  men  in  growing  farm  produce  in  the  United  States  ; 
consequently,  while  England  could  supply  several  countries  with  manu- 
factured articles,  her  small  population  could  consume  onlj'  a  small  part  of 
the  surplus  farm  produce  and  raw  materials  of  the  United  States.  This 
inequality  in  the  productive  capacity  of  a  manufacturing  population,  com- 
pared with  agriculturists,  made  it  absolutely  certain  that  England  could 
inundate  the  United  States  with  her  wares,  while  she  would  purchase  only 
a  small  part  of  the  farm  products  which  the  people  of  the  United  States 
would  have  to  sell. 

The  advantages  which  are  secured  to  a  nation  which  converts  raw 
materials  into  finished  products,  over  a  nation  which  confines  itself  to  the 
production  of  raw  materials,  is  verj-  clearly  brought  out  by  Mr.  Henry 
Cary  Baird,  in  the  following:  "  Straws  manufactured  in  and  now  received 
from  Switzerland,  Germany,  France  and  Italy,  are  sold  in  this  country 
at  as  high  a  rate  as  $10,000  per  ton."  Flax  is  manufactured  into  cam- 
brics, laces  and  embroideries,  and  sold,  on  an  average,  for  more  than 
$10,000  per  ton.  "When  this  increase  in  value  is  fully  considered,  and 
it  is  borne  in  mind  that  raw  materials,  including  agricultural  produce, 
are  almost  exclusively  the  result  of  human  labor;  that  manufactured 
products  are,  to  an  equal  extent,  the  result  of  steam  and  machine  power; 
that  about  six  thousand  times  as  much  human  labor  is  necessary  to 
produce  the  same  result,  when  it  can  be  reached  at  all,  without  the  aid 
of  steam  as  with  it ;  the  superior  productive  power  of  a  manufacturing 
nation  as  compared  with  that  of  a  nation  which  confines  itself  to  agri- 
culture becomes  apparent.  It  is  evident  that  free  trade  was  intended  to 
secure  and  hold  a  monopoly  of  steam  power  and  machinery,  with  all  the 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

immense  profits  and  advantages  which  they  would  confer  upon  one  countrj' 
over  the  rest  of  the  world. 

Assuming  that  the  advocates  of  free  trade  knew  that  they  were  in 
error  upon  this  proposition,  they  were  so  situated  that  their -imports  could 
exceed  their  exports  by  a  large  sum  each  year,  without  its  becoming  neces- 
sary to  send  abroad  their  precious  metals  to  settle  an  adverse  balance  of 
trade.  The  interest  account  upon  their  foreign  investments  would  each 
year  be  settled  for  in  goods  instead  of  money.  So  long  then  as  the  balance 
against  them  did  not  exceed  freight  charges,  insurance,  profits  of  im- 
porters, and  the  interest  account  upon  their  foreign  investments,  they 
would  not  be  called  upon  to  export  money  in  payment  of  an  adverse 
balance  of  trade.  Being  a  creditor  country' ,  England  entered  upon  the 
policy  of  free  trade,  believing,  under  the  circumstances,  that  she  was  in 
no  danger  of  having  her  treasury  exhausted  by  a  failure  of  the  ' '  goods 
for  goods ' '  theorj\  The  recent  experience  of  the  English  people  abso- 
lutely demonstrates  the  unsoundness  of  the  contention  that  import  goods 
are  always  paid  for  with  export  goods. 

As  the  struggle  for  industrial  supremacy  became  more  intense  the 
agricultural  districts  were  abandoned  and  the  cities  and  towns  at  once 
became  overcrowded  with  laborers  seeking  employment.  The  raid  which 
was  made  on  the  industries  of  other  countries  in  scaling  tariff  barriers,  to 
find  markets  for  English  goods,  and  later  the  increasing  competition  from 
the  Continent  demonstrated  that  the  wage  rate  of  English  artisans 
could  not  be  maintained;  that,  as  Mr.  Cobden  asserted,  Ynarkets  must  be 
won  and  held  with  cheap  goods.  Cheap  goods  could  not  be  made  with 
high  priced  labor.  In  order  to  meet  competition  the  price  of  goods  must 
be  reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  point.  This  involved  small  profits  and 
low  wages,  or  goods  could  not  be  sold.  The  inventive  genius  of  the 
advocates  of  free  trade  met  the  situation  with  the  proposition  that  "full 
employment  and  low  wages  were  better  than  partial  employment  and  high 
wages."  This  expression  has  found  a  place  in  free  trade  literature,  im- 
plying that  low  wages  necessarily  bring  "full  employment;"  but  we 
shall  see  later  that  the  operation  of  free  trade  has  not  only  doomed  Eng- 
lish artisans  to  low  wages  but  also  to  "  partial  employment."  When  free 
trade  was  first  announced,  it  was  claimed  that  two  jobs  would  seek  after 
one  man;  the  result  has  been  that  two  men  are  .seeking  after  the  same 
job.  The  laboring  masses  of  England  have  been  driven  to  a  point  where 
"partial  employment"  and  low  wages  are  the  normal  condition  of  the 
organized  skilled  labor,  while  there  exist  millions  of  unemployed,  a  vast 
"residuum,"  as  it  is  called,  living  in  a  most  wretched  and  most  hope- 
less condition. 

As  early  as  1826  Mr.  Huskisson  said  that,  "To  enable  capital  to 
obtain  a  fair  remuneration,  wages  must  be  kept  down."  An  effort  has 
been  made  to  mislead   the   laboring  masses,  by  the   assertion  that  the 


EXGLAXn  rXDEB  FREE  TRADE. 


nation  which  pays  to  its  artisans  the  highest  wages,  will  for  that  reason 
make  tlie  cheapest  goods  and  undersell  those  rivals  who  pay  lower 
wages.  The  industrial  supremacy  through  the  application  of  machiner}-, 
the  accumulation  of  capital,  and  the  monopoly  of  foreign  markets  ac- 
quired by  the  English  people  under  the  system  of  protection  brought 
about  an  increase  in  the  wages  of  English  artisans.  The  question  whether 
such  wage  rate  could  be  maintained  and  still  further  extended  was  one  of 
the  problems  involved  in  the  adoption  of  free  trade.  It  was  well  under- 
stood by  the  English  manufacturers  that  the  cost  of  production  depends  so 
largely  upon  the  wage  rate  that  high  wages  could  be  maintained  only  in 
those  industries  in  whi®h  their  artisans  were  possessed  of  a  higher  degree 
of  skill  and  efficiency  than  the  artisans  of  rival  industries.  It  was  never 
contended  for  a  moment  by  English  manufacturers  that  high  wages  alone 
bring  such  superior  efficiency.  It  is  true  that  handworkmen  paid  low 
wages  cannot  compete  with  those  using  machinery,  although  paid  double 
the  wage  rate.  It  was  not  high  wages  that  were  to  bring  cheap  produc- 
tion, but  it  was  superior  skill  and  efficiency  and  low  wages.  When  the 
artisans  of  the  Continent  were  provided  with  the  same  machiners^  sub- 
jected to  the  same  training  and  direction  in  its  use,  and  manufacturing 
came  to  be  carried  on  with  the  same  advantages  of  accumulated  capital 
that  superiority  which  the  English  artisans  possessed  in  certain  lines  began 
to  disappear.  It  was  found  that  the  English  manufacturers  could  not  pay 
higher  wages  than  were  paid  on  the  Continent  and  successfully  compete  in 
neutral  markets.  This  condition  forced  the  employers,  as  a  matter  of  self- 
defence,  to  reduce  wages  in  England  toward  the  level  on  the  Continent. 
The  experience  of  the  last  twenty-five  years  in  England  has  demonstrated 
that,  other  things  being  equal,  low  wages  bring  cheap  production.  The 
evidence  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Depres.sion  of  Trade,  quoted 
later,  will  be  found  most  conclusive  on  this  point. 

The  experience  of  tke  English  people  since  1874  has  tested  the 
unsoundness  of  all  the  free  trade  propositions  stated  above.  It  has  demon- 
strated the  truth  of  the  position  maintained  by  protectionists,  that  the 
\Vhole  system  of  free  trade  rested  upon  theories  which  were  fallacious  and 
would  not  stand  the  test  of  actual  experience. 

The  adoption  of  the  policy  of  free  trade  by  the  United  Kingdom  in 
1S46  was  in  many  respects  the  most  important  event  in  the  commercial 
history-  of  the  world.  That  the  leading  commercial  nation  should  utterly 
repudiate  the  system  of  protection,  and  expose  its  own  artisans  and  pro- 
ducers to  the  unrestricted  competition  of  all  countries,  was  an  evidence  of 
confidence  in  its  ability  to  succeed  under  the  new  policy.  This  one  fact 
standing  out  before  the  world,  confirmed  by  the  conceded  ability,  sagacity 
and  intelligence  of  this  the  most  advanced  nation  in  commercial  affairs, 
conferred  upon  the  new  creed  a  character  which  commanded  the  attention 
and  careful  consideration  of  the  wisest  statesmen  and  ablest  business  men 


lUCTURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


of  the  entire  world.  When  the  doctrines  of  free  trade  were  proclaimed, 
the  foundation  of  all  prior  economic  ideas  was  for  a  time  shaken.  The 
sound  and  beneficent  principles  of  protection  were  at  once  obscured  bj-  the 
criticisms  and  attacks  leveled  against  the  objectionable  features  of  the 
mercantile  system,  especially  those  which  had  ceased  to  be  necessary  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  industries  of  modern  countries.  At  the  time  that 
the  doctrine  of  free  trade  was  promulgated,  its  advocates  possessed  one 
advantage  over  their  adversaries.  Free  trade  was  a  new  and  untried 
policy.  No  leading  commercial  nation  had  tested  the  soundness  of  its 
principles  or  subjected  her  industries  to  its  influences.  The  effect  of  an 
application  of  its  principles  and  dogmas  upon  the  influstries  of  a  countrj-  was 
purely  a  matter  of  speculation  and  conjecture.  When  the  doctrine  of  free 
trade  was  proclaimed,  it  was  asserted  with  .such  a  degree  of  confidence  that 
the  economic  world  was  almost  taken  by  storm.  The  English  press,  pro- 
fessors, manufacturers  and  statesmen  were  busy  flooding  the  world  with 
literature  favoring  the  new  policy.  From  this  time  all  manner  of  tricks 
were  played  with  statistics,  the  facts  of  history  were  constantly  sup- 
pressed, and  a  gigantic  scheme  of  misrepresentation  was  practiced.  Every 
person  who  failed  to  endorse  this  policy  was  treated  with  contempt,  ridi- 
culed, and  denounced  as  being  either  ignorant  or  controlled  by  selfish- 
ness. Those  who  have  attempted  to  establish  industries  in  other  countries, 
under  protection,  have  always  been  assailed  as  monopolists  and  enemies  of 
the  people.  Those  who,  by  protection,  were  stimulating,  fostering  and 
building  up  industries  were  accused  of  placing  obstructions,  hindrances  and 
barriers  in  the  way  of  trade  and  commerce,  when  in  fact  they  were  only 
raising  barriers  to  prevent  English  maimfacturers  from  acquiring  an 
absolute  monopoly  of  the  markets  of  the  entire  world,  and  to  prevent  their 
own  industries  from  being  .slaughtered.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that, 
during  the  past  twenty  years,  nearly  all  the  books  which  have  been  cir- 
culated throughout  the  United  States  and  other  countries,  favoring  the 
policy  of  free  trade,  were  written  between  1846  and  1870,  and  before  a  fair 
test  was  made  of  the  system  favored. 

The  period  under  consideration  divides  itself  naturally  into  two 
parts.  First,  from  1846  to  about  1874,  during  which  time  England  held 
such  absolute  supremacy  in  manufacturing,  that  she  was  virtually  without 
competitors  in  neutral  markets,  and  at  the  same  time  able,  in  nearly  e\ery 
department,  to  defy  rivals  at  home.  It  will  be  shown  in  later  chapters 
that  Germany,  France  and  other  Continental  countries,  as  they 
gradually  recovered  from  the  impoverished  condition  in  which  they  were 
left  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  began  to  work  out  the  policy 
of  building  up  their  home  industries,  under  the  system  of  protection.  The 
substitution  of  machinery  for  hand  workmanship  was  necessary,  in  order 
to  bring  them  within  the  advantages  arising  from  those  new  inventions 
and  appliances  which  were  in  use  in  Great  Britain.     The  factory  system, 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


or  the  carrying  on  of  the  various  lines  of  manufacturing,  especially  iron 
and  steel,  and  textile  industries,  by  the  concentration  of  a  vast  amount  of 
capital,  made  the  building  of  large  plants  and  a  gigantic  industrial  S5'stem 
necessary.  By  1870,  the  people  of  the  Continent  had  advanced  so  far  in 
the  development  of  their  industries,  under  the  new  conditions,  that  they 
were  becoming  competitors  of  Great  Britain.  Again,  the  English  manu- 
facturers derived  great  advantage  by  the  reduction  of  duties  on  imports  into 
other  countries,  which  for  a  time,  enabled  them  more  easily  to  enter  foreign 
markets.  Under  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  of  i860,  France  continued  to  admit 
the  products  of  English  factories  under  lower  duties,  until  1882,  when  the 
French  Government  refused  to  renew  the  treatj'  and  returned  to  a  high 
protective  tariff.  From  1865  to  1879,  Germany  and  Prussia  practiced  free 
trade.  Spain,  Portugal,  Austria  and  kussia  were  at  this  time  pursuing  a 
policy  more  favorable  to  the  admission  of  English  goods. 

During  this  period  English  manufacturers  had  fewer  barriers  to  over- 
come, and  consequently  were  able,  by  means  of  competition,  to  prevent 
a  more  rapid  growth  of  rival  industries  on  the  Continent,  in  spite  of 
the  universal  business  activity,  arising  from  causes  which  were  beginning 
to  operate  at  the  time  free  trade  was  adopted  in  Great  Britain.  The 
discoveries  of  gold,  the  building  of  railroads,  the  substitution  of  steam 
for  sailing  vessels,  all  greatly  stimulated  business  enterprises.  The  con- 
ditions which  prevailed  between  1850  and  1870,  were  such  that  a  fair 
trial  of  the  principles  of  free  trade  could  not  be  made.  The  real  test 
of  the  benefits  or  disadvantages  of  the  policy  of  free  trade,  must  be 
found  under  sharp  free  competition.  No  injuries  can  come  to  the  indus- 
tries of  a  country,  so  long  as  they  hold  such  an  advantage  over  would-be 
rivals,  as  enable  them  to  undersell  and  control  their  markets.  So  long 
as  the  English  manufacturers  could  hold  their  own  markets  against  all 
rivals,  drive  all  competitors  out  of  neutral  markets,  and  scale  the  tariff 
barriers  of  other  coimtries  with  their  surplus  produce,  and  sell  them  .so 
cheaply  that  the  industrial  progress  of  those  countries  so  invaded  was  held 
in  check,  it  cannot  be  said  that,  so  far  as  Great  Britain  herself  was  con- 
cerned, she  was  making  any  test  of  the  principles  of  free  trade.  It  should 
also  be  remembered  that,  at  the  time  this  policy  was  entered  upon,  the 
English  people  held  a  monopoly  of  the  manufacturing  and  carrying  trade 
of  the  entire  world.  With  the  vast  sums  invested  in  enterprises  and  loans 
in  foreign  countries,  the  large  interest  account  which  each  year  came  to 
England  was  .sufficient  to  settle  a  large  adverse  balance  of  trade,  without 
draining  the  precious  metals  from  the  country.  A  creditor  nation  is  in 
less  danger  of  having  its  gold  withdrawn  by  an  adver.se  balance  of  trade, 
than  a  debtor  country.  During  the  period  in  question,  Engli.sh  commerce 
enjoyed  the  same  steady  expansion  which  had  been  going  on  for  a  whole 
century,  and  was  subjected  to  few  influences  which  retarded  or  interfered 
with  it.     In  any  event  the  causes  which  contributed  to  the  expansion  of 


liETVEN  TO.  FREE  TRADE. 

trade  so  overbalanced  the  injuries  to  its  agricultural  and  other  industries, 
that  as  a  whole,  the  nation  continued  to  be  prosperous. 

The  pre-eminence  of  Great  Britain  in  1850,  when  she  entered  upon 
her  free  trade  policy,  as  a  manufacturing  nation,  when  compared  with  any 
country  or  any  period  in  the  history  of  the  world,  is  one  of  the  marvels  of 
the  age.  With  accumulated  capital  more  vast  at  that  time  tlian  any  nation 
in  Christendom;  with  a  most  energetic,  venturesome  and  determined  body 
of  business  men,  ready  to  hazard  anything  and  stop  at  nothing  in  their 
race  for  wealth,  equipped  as  they  were,  nothing  but  the  most  unforeseen 
calamities  could  prevent  unexampled  increase  in  wealth  and  business  en- 
terprises. Holding  a  monopoly  of  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world;  without 
a  rival  or  successful  competitor  in  the  production  of  cottons,  woolens, 
linens,  iron  and  steel.  Great  Britain  had  reason  to  believe  that  nothing 
but  an  absolute  closing  of  foreign  markets  to  her  trade  could  stop  its 
unlimited  expansion  and  growth. 

As  early  as  1828  the  .steam-power  alone  of  the  countrj-  was  estimated 
to  be  equivalent  to  1,800,000  laborers.  By  1850  they  possessed  1,290,000 
of  steam-power,  while  all  Europe  possessed  2,240,000.  By  1854  it  was 
estimated  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League,  '  that  the  28,000,000  of  people 
in  the  United  Kingdom  had  the  productive  capacity  of  600,000,000  of 
people  practicing  the  methods  in  use  before  the  invention  in  machinery. 
These  28,000,000  of  people,  being  a  little  over  two  per  cent  of  the  entire 
population  of  the  globe,  consumed  one-half  of  the  raw  cotton  grown  in  the 
world  and  converted  it  into  fabrics  in  their  factories.'  -In  1840,  out  of 
30,000,000  tons  of  coal  raised  from  their  mines,  29,000,000  tons  were  con- 
sumed at  home.  In  1850,  out  of  81,000,000  tons  of  coal  mined  in  the 
entire  world,  49,000,000  tons  were  produced  in  England,  46,000,000  tons 
of  which  were  consumed  at  home.  As  early  as  1840  21  per  cent,  nearly 
one-fourth  of  the  external  trade  of  the  entire  world,  was  carried  on  through 
English  ports.  This  was  the  condition  in  which  England  found  herself 
when  she  entered  upon  the  policy  of  free  trade  after  three  hundred  years 
of  the  most  vigorous  system  of  protection  that  was  e\-er  pursued  by  any 
nation. 

At  this  time  an  unforeseen  event  occurred  which  gave  to  the  busine.ss 
of  the  world  an  impetus  of  the  greatest  magnitude.  The  discovery  of 
gold  in  California  in  1849,  and  in  Australia  in  1851,  increased  the  quantity 
of  primary  money  of  the  world,  and  furnished  a  basis  for  the  vast  under- 
takings upon  which  all  nations  were  then  entering.  The  extensive  busi- 
ness relations  of  Great  Britain  enabled  her  manufacturers  and  shippers  to 
secure  the  largest  share  of  this  treasure,  and  especially  that  portion  mined  in 
Australia.   Mr.  Yeats,  in  speaking  of  the  treasure  found  in  Australia,  says  : 

Within  ten  years  gold  was  sent   to  England   to   the   amount  of  ^100,000.000. 
During  two  or  three  years  of  this  period  an  annual  average  exceeding  ^"12,000,'boo 
'  Charter  of  the  Nations,  p.  199.       '  Yeats'  Recent  and  Existing  Commerce,  p.  9J. 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


arrive  in  England,  and  the  quantity  found  within  more  recent  years  still  amounts 
to  from  /"7, 000,000  to  /S,ooo,ooo  annually.  The  total  exports  of  gold  between  1851 
and  1868  amounted  to  more  than  ^31,000,000  from  New  South  Wales,  and  above 
/I38,ooo,ooo  from  Victoria— an  aggregate  of  more  than  /i69,ooo,ooo.  These  well 
nigh  incredible  sums  are  amounts  entered  on  ships  manifest,  and  are  irrespective  of 
the  gold  retained  in  the  colony  and  the  large  sums  brought  under  private  charge.' 

The  advantages  which  the  business  world  derived  from  the  increased 
supply  of  the  precious  metals  may  be  gathered  somewhat  from  the  extent 
of  its  production.  Between  1850  and  1870  at  least  $2,500,000,000  was 
added  to  the  circulating  medium  of  the  world.  England  received  a  large 
share.  The  value  of  the  gold  coined  at  the  British  mint  during  the  fifteen 
years  ending  with  1854  was  $327,500,000,  and  during  the  fifteen  years 
ending  in  1869  it  was  $382,500,000.  Thus  an  average  of  $22,500,000  was 
put  in  circulation  each  year,  in  addition  to  what  was  consumed  in  the  arts 
and  manufactures.  It  should  be  noted  that  during  this  period  also  the 
increase  in  the  metals  gave  to  the  manufacture  of  jewelry,  watches  and 
plated  ware,  a  great  impetus.  The  value  of  gold  remaining  in  England 
in  1870  was  $590,000,000.^ 

England  was  already  the  richest  country  on  the  globe,  with  a  large 
class  of  people  who  for  years  had  been  investing  their  incomes  in  foreign 
securities,  and  supplying  capital  for  the  vast  undertakings  of  other  coun- 
tries. With  the  treasures  from  the  mines  of  Australia  flowing  into  the 
pockets  of  English  capitalists,  they  were  much  stronger  than  ever  before 
for  commercial  conquests.  Apart  from  the  vast  incomes  of  the  manufac- 
turers, the  resources  of  the  English  nobility  and  landed  gentry  were  of  the 
greatest  magnitude.  Mr.  Colton  (1848)  gives  some  interesting  figures  on 
this  point  : 

The  annual  income  of  the  Duke  of  Sutherland  is  $1,742,240  ;  that  of  the  Duke  of 
Northumberland  is  11,452,000;  that  of  the  Marquis  of  Westminster  is  $1,355,000; 
that  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh  is  |i, 210,000.  The  English  nobility  alone,  num- 
bering about  four  hundred  peers,  not  including  Irish  and  Scotch,  receive  an  annual 
income  of  $26,026,000.  The  annual  income  of  the  English  gentrj-,  not  reckon- 
ing Irish  and  Scotch,  including  baronets,  knights,  country  and  other  gentlemen, 
is  $256,250,000,  or  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  aggregate  income  of  all  classes  of  the 
British  empire,  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  which  is  about  $14,520,000,000.  The 
civil  list  or  annual  appropriations  for  the  royal  household,  fixed  on  William  IV.,  was 
$2,468,400.  This  grant  to  William  IV.  was  a  reform  ;  as  it  appears  that  the  annual 
average  of  the  civil  list  from  1760,  the  accession  of  George  III.  to  the  demise  of 
George  IV.  was  $6,364,600.  The  annual  incomes  of  persons  employed  under  the 
British  Government  is  $34,673,200.' 

With  more  capital  at  their  command  than  an^^  other  nation,  they  were 
capable  of  taking  advantage  of  business  opportunities  as  they  arose,  and 
turning  them  to  their  own  profit.  By  1850  conditions  had  arisen  which 
added  immeasurably  to  the  profits  which  might   be  derived   from  their 

'Recent  and  Existing  Commerce,  p.  92.        -Simmond's  Science  and  Commerce,  p.  8.        ^pui^jjc 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


iron  industries.  The  period  of  railroad  and  steamship  building,  which 
began  about  1840,  by  1850  had  so  attracted  the  attention  of  capitalists 
that  it  was  considered  a  great  field  for  future  speculations  and  the  in- 
vestment of  capital,  by  those  possessed  of  vast  wealth.  The  building  of 
locomotives,  tenders,  the  making  of  iron  and  steel  rails,  and  other  mate- 
rials to  be  used  in  the  construction,  required  extensive  plants  and  the 
investment  of  large  capital.  England  with  her  iron  ore  adjacent  to  her 
coal  fields;  with  her  iron  furnaces,  experienced  artisans,  engineers  and 
manufacturers,  was  better  equipped  for  entering  upon  this  new  industry, 
than  any  other  country.  America,  the  British  colonies,  all  new  countries 
and  even  the  Continent  of  Europe  looked  to  English  capitalists  to  furnish 
money,  and  to  English  manufacturers  for  a  large  portion  of  the  materials. 
The  magnitude  of  the  English  iron  industry  from  1854  to  1857  is 
shown  in  a  paper  published  in  the  Mining  Record,  under  the  direction  of 
Mr.  R.  Hunt,  in  connection  with  the  Museum  of  Practical  Geology  of 
Eondon. 

Total  Produce  of  Pig-iron  in  Great  Britain. 

Engi,and.  Tons. 

Northumberland 63,250 

Durham, 284,500 

Yorkshire 296,838 

Lancashire, 1.233 

Cumberland, 30.515 

Derbyshire, ."   .  112,160 

Shropshire, 117. 141 

North  Staffordshire, I34.057 

South  Staffordshire  and  Worcestershire 657,295 

Northamptonshire,      11,500 

Gloucestershire, 23,882 

Somersetshire,      300 

Wales,  North, 37. 049 

Wales,  South,  anthracite  districts 63,440 

Wales,  South,  bituminous  districts 907,287 

Scotland, 918,000 

Ireland, 1,000 

Total  produce  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 3.659.447 

The  quantity  of  iron  ore  raised  in  all  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom  in  1857,  and 
used  in  the  production  of  pig-iron,  was  found,  from  the  same  returns,  to  be  9,573.- 
281  tons. 

For  smelting  which,  there  were  in  active  operation  in 

England 333  blast-furnaces 

Wales, 170      " 

Scotland 124      " 

Ireland, I       "            " 

Total,   . 62S 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


The  mean  average  price  of  the  pig-iron,  "mixed  muubers, "  deducted  from  all 
the  sales  of  the  year,  was  £2,  los.  2d.  ;  which  gives  the  market  value  of  the  pig- 
iron  made  as  /12, 838, 560  per  annum.  If  we  assume  that  the  make  of  the  iron  has 
increased  in  the  same  rate  since  1S57,  it  must  now  amount  to  4,250,000  tons. 

In  connection  with  the  above,  we  insert  the  following  table  from  Mr.  Kenyon 
Blackwell's  paper  on  the  "Iron  Industrj'  of  Great  Britain,"  read  before  the  Society 
of  Arts.     It  gives  the  estimated  production  of  crude  iron  in  the  various  countries: 


Tons. 

Great  Britain, 3,000,000 

France,      750,000 

United  States, 750,000 

Prussia 300,000 

Austria, 250,000 


Belgium, 

Russia 

Sweden 

Various  German  States, 
Other  countries,      .    .    . 


Tons. 

200,000 

200,000 

150,000 

100,000 

300,000 


Total, 6,000,00c 

The  following  table  gives  the  annual  production  of  steel   iu  various  countries : 


England — Cast  steel,  .  . 
Bar  steel,  .  .  . 
Spring  steel,    ....      10, 


Tons.  Tons. 

23,000        France,      15,000 

7,000        Prussia, 5.453 

Austria, 13.037 

United  States 10,000 


Total, 


In  referring  to  the  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  Great  Britain  produces  as  much 
crude  iron  as  all  other  countries  put  together ;  and  a  great  portion  of  that  iron,  being 
converted  into  bars  and  plates,  indicates  a  large  and  important  article  of  production 
— an  article  of  immense  value  to  the  country,  of  great  demand  at  home  and  abroad, 
and  justly  entitled  not  only  to  improvements  and  economy  iu  its  manufacture,  but 
to  the  generous  support  of  a  liberal  and  enlightened  government.' 

In  considering  the  causes  which  contributed  to  the  growth  of  English 
indu.stry,  and  the  expansion  of  their  trade  between  1850  and  1S70,  the 
railroad  building  which  took  place  not  only  in  England^  but  throughout 
the  world,  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  In  1850  there  were  6600  miles  of 
railroad  in  the  United  Kingdom,  representing  an  invested  capital  of  $440,- 
000,000,  with  annual  receipts  of  $66,250,000  ;  while  by  1870,  the  number 
of  miles  had  reached  15,000,  with  an  invested  capital  of  $2,650,000,000, 
with  receipts  of  $200,000,000  per  annum.  It  was  during  this  period  that 
Mr.  Thomas  Brassey,  perhaps  the  most  famous  and  largest  railroad  con- 
tractor that  ever  lived,  was  building  railroads  in  England  and  on  the  Con- 
tinent. At  one  time  the  concerns  with  which  he  was  a&sociated  had  in 
their  employ  in  all  of  their  departments  80,000  laborers,  in  the  production 
of  material  and  the  construction  of  railroads  in  many  countries.  In 
1865  there  were  built  in  England  eighty  locomotives  for  the  East  India 
railroad.     At  this  time  the  English  manufacturer  could  make  locomotives, 

'The  Tariff  Question,  by  Bigelow,  Appendix  No   i. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


I 


rails  and  appliances  more  cheaply  than  they  could  be  supplied  from  the 
Continent.  The  magnitude  of  the  iron  industry  in  England,  during  this 
time,  and  the  enormous  profits  which  must  have  arisen  from  it  in  its  rela- 
tion to  railroads  alone,  may  be  estimated  from  the  number  of  miles  con- 
structed during  this  period  throughout  the  world. 

The  following  summary  of  the  railroads  in  existence  in  1866  shows 
the  large  amount  of  business  that  must  have  fallen  to  the  English  manufac- 
turers during  the  twenty  years  preceding  that  date,  the  period  within 
which  they  were  constructed: 

Miles  of  Railroads  in  Operation  in  1866. 

North  American, 39,414.1 

West  Indies, 410.3 

South  American, 1,041.9 

Total  American 40,866.3 

Europe 50,117.5 

Asia, 3,660.5 

Africa 375.4 

Australia, 607.7 

Total  of  the  world,      95,627. 

The  magnitude  of  the  textile  industries  in  1 856  is  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  a  paper  on  the  ' '  Progress  of  Textile  Manufactures  in 
Great  Britain,"  read  March  6,  1861,  before  the  Society  of  Arts,  London, 
by  Alexander  Redgrave,  one  of  her  Majesty's  inspectors  of  factories  : 

There  are  four  classes  of  raw  products  convertible  into  textile  fabrics;  these  are 
cotton,  wool  and  worsted;  flax,  hemp  and  its  tribe,  and  silk.  Wool  and  worsted, 
klthough  the  same  material,  are  of  a  different  natilre,  and  require  to  be  manufactured 
in  a  different  manner.  They  are,  therefore,  treated  of  separately.  It  is  usual  to  divide 
the  textile  fabrics  into  five  classes.  The  cotton  trade  represents  more  than  one-half  of 
the  whole  of  the  textile  fabrics.  The  woolen  manufacture,  once  the  chief  textile 
industry  of  the  country,  ranks  second  in  importance.  Worsted,  which  is  obtained 
by  separating  the  long  fibre  of  the  wool  from  the  shorter  staple,  ranks  as  the  tliird. 
Flax  is  fourth,  and  silk  is  the  fifth  and  last.  There  are  various  methods  of  exliibiting 
the  extent  of  these  manufactures,  in  some  of  which,  perhaps,  the  order  in  which  I 
have  enumerated  them  might  be  varied  ;  but  taking  the  general  importance  and 
probable  value  of  the  several  branches  of  manufacture,  the  order  in  which  tliey  have 
been  named  will  be  found  the  most  correct. 

Statistics  have  been  procured  at  intervals  by  the  inspectors  of  factories  with 
reference  to  the  establishments  under  their  supervision,  viz.,  those  in  which  either 
of  the  raw  materials  enumerated  are  spun  or  manufactured.  No  account  has  ever 
been  taken  of  the  print-works,  bleaching  and  dyeing  works,  lace  factories,  etc., 
which  are  excluded  from  the  operation  of  the  Factory  Acts ;  and  the  following  figures 
refer,  therefore,  to  those  establishments  only  in  which  the  first  processe.ss  of  manu- 
facture up  to  and  including  the  weaving  are  carried  on  by  aid  of  water  or  steam- 
power  : 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


Cotton,  . 
Wool,  . 
Worsted, 
Flax,  .  . 
Silk,   .    . 


2,210 

1,505 

525 

417 
460 


97.132 
25,901 
14.904 
18,322 
5,176 


161,435 


28,010,217 
1,786,972 
1,324,549 
1,288,043 
1,093,799 


298,847 
14,453 
36,956 
7,689 
9,260 


367,205 


Number  of 

Persons 
Employed. 


379,213 
79,091 
87,794 
80,262 
56,137 


682,497 


As  I  have  before  stated,  the  above  figures  refer  only  to  persons  employed  in  estab- 
lishments subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  Factory  Acts,  amounting  to  682,497;  and  I 
have  estimated,  after  making  various  calculations  and  consulting  the  best  authorities, 
that  there  are  887,369  persons  employed  upon  textile  fabrics  in  establishments  not 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Factory  Acts;  which  two  classes  of  persons  have  dependent 
upon  them  at  least  3,000,000  of  unemployed  persons;  representing  a  total  of  4,568,082 
persons  dependent  upon  the  textile  fabrics  for  their  maintenance— being  in  the  pro- 
portion of  16  per  cent,  or  one-sixth  of  the  population.  But  there  are  others,  though 
not  directly  employed  upon  the  fabrics  themselves,  equally  dependent  upon  the  pros- 
perity of  textile  manufactures  for  their  subsistence.  For  instance:  Those  engaged  in 
the  procuring  of  coal  (at  least  3,000,000  tons  are  consumed  per  annum  in  factories, 
print-works,  etc.)  ;  those  engaged  in  the  procuring  of  iron,  engine  and  machine 
makers  ;  those  engaged  in  the  leather  trade,  in  the  manufacture  of  grease,  in  the 
procuring  of  oil,  dry  wares,  paper,  skips  or  baskets,  and  of  various  minor  articles 
used  in  the  manufacturing  establishments;  those  employed  in  warehouses,  etc.,  etc. 
At  a  moderate  computation,  I  reckon  that  the  above  persons  and  their  families 
would  raise  the  number  of  those  dependent  upon  the  textile  fabrics  to  20  per  cent,  or 
one-fifth  of  the  population. 

Such  is  the  manufacturing  power  of  British  factories.  I  regret  that  the  means  do 
not  exist  for  comparing  all  of  these  statements  with  the  statistics  of  foreign  countries. 
Although  in  some  countries  accurate  accounts  are  taken  by  the  government  of  the 
various  occupations  of  the  people,  and  the  size  and  extent  of  industrial  establishments, 
yet  so  nmch  of  that  which  is  performed  under  the  factory  system  in  England  forms  a 
part  of  a  domestic  system  abroad,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  institute  a  comparison  with 
foreign  countries;  and  I  ^m  obliged,  therefore,  to  limit  comparison  to  "cotton 
fabrics,"  for  which  I  have  obtained  the  following  statements  of  the  principal  countries 
in  Europe: 


Countries. 

No.  of 
Factories. 

No.  of  Spindles. 

No.  of  Persons 
Employed. 

Austria, 

Bavaria, 

Belgium 

202 
18 

169 
2,394 

132 
70 

134 

132 
30 

1,500,000 
558,700 
600,000 

3.457,552 
194,290 

1,400,000 
604,646 

1,112,625 
440,000 

30 
12 
12 
244 

5 

50 

12 
20 

020 
000 
000 

579 
201 
000 

000 
000 

Saxony                 

Switzerland 

The  smaller  States  of  Germany,  .    . 

3,281 

9,867,813 

393,800 

Great  Britain  and  Ireland,     .... 

2,210 

28,010,217 

379,213 

RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


The  above  number  of  spindles— say,  in  round  numbers,  10,000,000— are  known  to 
be  in  operation  in  certain  countries  in  Europe,  being  those  most  engaged  in  industrial 
pursuits,  and  containing  an  aggregate  population  of  160,000,000.  If  to  the  remaining 
countries,  containing  a  population  of  55,000,000,  we  give  4,000,000  spindles — which  is  a 
very  large  estimate  for  Spain,  Portugal,  Itah-,  Turkey,  Greece,  Denmark,  Holland, 
etc.— it  will  be  found  that  the  Continent  of  Europe  gives  emploj'ment  to  14,000,000 
spindles.  To  this  number  must  be  added  the  probable  number  in  operation  in  America, 
which  has  been  estimated  not  to  exceed  7,000,000.  There  will  then  be  a  total  of 
21,000,000  owi  of  England,  tended  by  every  variety  of  race,  each  with  their  diSerent 
characteristics  and  habits;  while  in  Great  Britain  alone  there  are  28,000,000,  tended  by 
industrious,  intelligent  and  steady  operatives. 

The  following  shows  the  value  of  the  various  textile  fabrics  manufactured  in  this 
country  in  1S56  : 


Character  of  Fabrics. 

Estimated  Value 

of  Goods 

Mauufactured. 

Value  Exported. 

Estimated  Value 
Consumed  in 
this  Country. 

Cotton, 

Wool 

/55, 298, 778 
23,942,976 
12,715,569 
15,100,000 
18,900,000 

^38,283,770 
5,985,744 
6,415,569 
6,262,528 
2,966,938 

^17,015,008 
17,975,232 
6,300,000 

Worsted, 

Silk,'  :;;.■;;;;: 

8,837,412 
15,933.062 

125,957,323 

59,914,609 

66,060,7141 

Mr.  Gladstone  stated  in  one  of  his  speeches,  speaking  of  the  period 
from  1854  to  1870,  that  British  trade  "grew  by  leaps  and  bounds." 
Every  free  trade  book  is  filled  with  the  most  glowiiig  accounts  of  the 
expansion  of  their  industries  during  this  period,  attributing  it  all,  of 
course,  to  the  adoption  of  free  trade.  They  ignore  all  those  elements 
which  were  the  prime  catises  of  such  expansion.  They,  of  course,  con- 
ceal the  fact  that  it  was  a  period  of  universal  business  and  commer- 
cial activity  in  all  countries.  The  constant  extension  of  machinery  and 
the  application  of  discoveries  in  science,  the  accumulation  of  wealth, 
the  building  of  railroads,  were  revolutionizing  the  commercial  affairs  of  all 
civilized  nations.  These  causes  created  a  demand  for  commodities  which 
England  was  best  able  to  supplj-.  That  ability  had  arisen  from  a  fitness 
which  had  been  reached  under  the  policy  of  protection.  Wherever  protec- 
tive barriers  were  removed  in  other  countries,  her  markets  were  extended 
and  her  trade  increased.  In  all  instances  where  .she  had  greater  facilities  for 
supplying  the  new  demands  which  had  arisen,  her  markets  were  extended. 
In  all  instances,  where  on  account  of  superior  skill  and  longer  experience 
the  English  manufacturers  were  better  able  to  supply  goods  than  other 
countries,  they  .secured  the  trade.  It  was  the  supremacy  which  had  been 
acquired  by  long  years  of  experience,  and  by  new  inventions,  that  enabled 
the  Engli.sh  people  during  this  period  to  extend  their  foreign  commerce 
and  increase  the  outptit  of  their  factories  to  such  a  great  extent.     In  i860, 

'  The  Tariff  Question,  by  Bigelow,  Appendix,  108. 


ENGLAND  UNDER  FREE  TRADE. 


the  mechanics,  especially  of  the  United  States,  and  nearly  of  the  whole 
world,  were  using  tools  made  in  England.  The  superior  quality  and  repu- 
tation which  they  had  acquired  gave  them  a  preference  over  all  others, 
It  has  been  said  that  in  i860  a  large  percentage  of  the  merchandise  on 
sale  in  the  stores  of  the  United  States  and  of  all  the  British  colonies  and 
possessions  were  the  productions  of  English  factories.  The  free  trader 
boasting  of  the  expansion  of  their  trade,  ignores  all  scientific  discoveries 
and  appliances  in  chemistry,  electricity,  pneumatics,  hydraulics,  and 
mechanics.  What  was  really  accomplished  by  scientific  means  is  placed  to 
the  credit  of  free  trade.  It  was  the  building  of  railroads  which  made  the 
market  for  English  iron,  that  increased  this  branch  of  commerce,  and  not 
the  adoption  of  free  trade  in  1846.  Her  trade  would  have  grown  if  she 
had  continued  her  protective  policy,  just  as  it  had  grown  and  expanded 
for  one  hundred  years  prior  to  1846.  The  advocates  of  free  trade  have 
kept  constantly  before  the  world,  and  pictured  in  most  glittering  terms, 
the  increase  in  their  exports  and  imports  during  this  period.  Mr. 
Newmarch,  in  1878,  recognizing  the  absurd  lengths  to  which  the  praise  of 
free  trade  was  being  carried,  said: 

Before  entering  upon  the  details  of  this  inquiry,  it  is  perhaps  necessary  to  say,  as 
a  preliminary  remark,  that  in  treating  of  this  vast  extension  of  industry  and  foreign 
trade  in  this  country,  during  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years,  it  is  not  for  a  moment 
intended  to  affirm  that  the  whole  of  these  extensions,  or  even  the  larger  part  of  them, 
are  due  to  free  trade  alone.  It  is  a  conclusion  of  common  observation  and  common 
sense,  that  the  progress  of  population,  invention,  science,  and  resources,  have  all  most 
powerfully  contributed  to  the  producing  and  competing  power  of  the  country.' 

In  the  succeeding  chapter  it  is  proposed  to  take  up  the  other  side  and 
show  that,  in  the  midst  of  the  expansion  of  trade  which  was  going  on,  the 
increase  of  imports  had  begun  that  system  of  undermining  their 
domestic  industries,  which  during  the  last  twenty-five  years  has  been  dis- 
placing labor,  diminishing  profits  and  destroying  the  industrial  life  of  the 
nation. 

>  Journal,  XLI-,  Part  2,  June,  1878,  of  the  Statistical  Society,  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  158. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Free  Trade  and  English  Industries. 

That  was  our  real  idea  of  "  free  trade  " — "  all  the  trade  to  myself !  "  You  find  now 
that  by  "competition  "  other  people  can  manage  to  sell  something  as  well  as  you — and 
now  we  call  for  protection  again.     Wretches  ! — Ruskin. 

The  Bimiinghani  Daily  Times  has  unearthed  the  following  advertisement,  from 
the  Times  of  1849,  headed  :     What  does  free  trade  mean  ?    It  means  : 

Using  French  boots  and  shoes,  and  leaving  the  English  shoemaker  to  starve. 

Using  French  gloves,  and  sending  the  Worcester  glovemakers  to  the  work- 
house. 

Using  Geneva  clocks  and  watches,  and  ruining  the  Clerkenwell  watchmakers. 

Preferring  Brazilian  sugar,  and  ruining  our  own  West  Indian  Colonies. 

Using  French  silks,  and  pauperizing  Spitalfields. 

Admitting  Polish  and  American  corn,  and  ruining  our  own  farmers. 

This  is  free  trade.  There  is  not  another  nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth  besides 
England,  so  stupid  as  to  tolerate  it. 

There  were  prophets  in  those  days. 

The  second  part  of  the  period  under  consideration  begins  about  the 
year  1874  and  closes  with  the  year  1894,  a  term  of  twenty  years,  during 
which  it  may  be  said  that  all  the  dogmas  and  alleged  doctrines  of 
free  trade  have  been  put  to  a  sharp  test  in  England.  During  this 
period,  the  Continental  countries  reached  such  a  development  of  their 
industries  that  they  had  become  strong  and  vigorous  competitors  of  Great 
Britain,  not  only  in  neutral  markets  but  in  the  home  market,  as  well.  It 
is  during  this  time  also,  that  we  find  the  only  test  of  the  actual  workings 
of  free  trade  in  a  great  manufacttiring  countrj',  when  subject  to  vigorous 
competition.  How  else  could  the  test  of  the  efficacy  of  free  trade  Ik- 
applied  ?  It  certainly  is  not  in  those  industries  in  which  a  nation  holds  a 
monopoly.  The  United  States  requires  no  protection  to  cotton  raising, 
because  it  can  be  grown  in  abundance  and  so  cheaply  that  it  is  not  sul> 
jected  to  the  competition  of  the  importation  of  cotton  grown  in  other 
countries  ;  but  should  the  time  ever  come  when  American  cotton  manu- 
facturers could  be  supplied  with  raw  cotton  from  Egypt,  Asia  or  South 
America,  at  a  lower  price  than  it  could  be  profitably  grown  in  the  Southern 
States,  then  the  question  would  present  itself  of  the  necessity  of  protection 
to  this  product.  Free  trade  under  these  circumstances  would  determine 
the  necessity  of  imposing  a  protective  tariiT,  and  the  injurious  effects  of 
free  imports  could  easily  be  ascertained.  The  experience  of  the  United 
Kingdom  under  free  trade  during  the  pa.st  twenty-five  years  has  furnished 
(224) 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 

the  world  with  an  example  of  its  actual  operation,  and  has  subjected  the 
system  to  a  more  thorough  test  than  has  been  applied  to  it  in  any  other 
country.  The  advocates  of  protection  are  now  able  to  point  specifically  to 
the  effect  of  free  imports  upon  the  industries  of  the  greatest  commercial 
nation  in  the  world. 

It  is  most  interesting  to  trace  the  rise  and  growth  of  industries  on  the 
Continent  of  Europe,  and  through  the  official  reports  of  the  statistical  de- 
partment of  the  British  Government,  the  steady  year- by-year  advance  which 
has  been  made  in  the  imports  into  England  of  those  agricultural  products  of 
the  United  States,  South  America,  the  Continent  of  Europe  and  Asia, 
which  have  been  poured  in  to  feed  the  English  people,  undermining  and 
supplanting  the  agricultural  interests.  We  are  able  now  to  count,  year 
b\-  3ear,  the  increase  of  imports  into  England,  of  woolens,  cotton  goods, 
silks,  and  numerous  other  wares  and  articles,  which  are  displacing 
English-made  goods,  reducing  the  profits  of  the  manufacturers,  silencing 
machinery,  driving  the  capitalists  and  manufacturers  out  of  the  country 
to  invest  their  money  and  remove  their  plants  to  those  countries  where 
they  are  shielded  by  the  fostering  care  of  protective  tariffs.  The  student 
of  economics  to-day  is  able  definiteh^  to  point  out  facts  which  during 
the  earlier  part  of  the  free  trade  movement  could  not  be  obtained.  That 
which  at  first  rested  wholly  on  prophecy  and  conjecture  is  at  last 
exposed  to  the  crucial  test  of  actual  experience.  Protectionists  are  now 
invading  the  stronghold  of  free  trade,  and  there  finding  the  facts  which 
completely  annihilate  its  alleged  principles  and  expose  its  fallacies.  For 
the  first  time  in  two  centuries  the  industrial  progress  of  England  has 
been  arrested;  although  while  she  was  under  protection  her  industries 
were  subjected  to  short  periods  of  business  depressions,  arising  often  from 
over-speculation  and  other  causes  which  exist  among  those  people  who 
engage  in  vast  undertakings,  and  respond  to  great  stimulating  influences 
in  their  enterprises.  The  panic  following  the  Napoleonic  wars  was  the 
natural  consequence  of  the  inflation.  Other  panics  of  similar  character 
visited  the  country,  but  there  has  not  been  in  the  history  of  the  world  a 
depression  of  such  long  duration  as  the  one  w^hich  has  existed  in  England 
since  1876.  It  has  been  continuous,  unabating  and  ever  present,  slight 
fluctuations  in  special  trades  have  not  checked  the  downward  tendency, 
which  has  continued  year  by  year.  During  this  time  profits  of  manufac- 
tures ha\"e  been  reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  margin,  and  in  many 
instances  absolutely  wiped  out.  Plants  of  whole  branches  of  indus- 
try have  become  of  questionable  value.  Repairs  have  been  neglected. 
Old  machinery  has  been  used  in  many  in.stances  where  there  has  not  been 
sufficient  confidence  in  a  revival  of  business  to  warrant  the  purchase  of 
new.  Salaries  of  clerks,  employees  and  salesmen  have  been  universally 
reduced.  The  wages  of  artisans,  for  the  first  time  in  over  a  century,  have 
been  scaled  dowr.  In  addition  to  this,  only  partial  employment,  three  or 
'5 


IJETURN  TO  FBEE  TRADE. 


four  days  a  week,  has  been  found,  where  hitherto,  and  especially  under 
protection,  full  time  was  made.  Industries  have  been  destroyed,  manu- 
facturers bankrupted,  and  artisans  either  driven  out  of  the  country  or 
reduced  to  pauperism.  A  large  part  of  the  people,  nearly  5,000.000,  are 
subjected  to  a  condition  of  pauperism,  or  semi-pauperism.  The  agricul- 
tural industry  of  the  country  which  for  centuries  afforded  comfortable 
and  profitable  means  of  subsistence  for  a  large  portion  of  the  population, 
is  practically  ruined.  There  has  been  no  instance  in  the  history  of  any 
country  in  modern  times  where  such  degradation,  misery  and  poverty  can 
be  found.  There  is  no  country  where  such  universal  complaint  of  hard 
times  is  made.  The  important  point  to  be  considered  is  the  fact  that  it  is 
due  to  no  exceptional  or  temporary  business  crisis,  but  has  become  the 
settled  permanent  condition  lasting  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century,  with 
no  hope  of  improvement  so  long  as  free  trade  exists  in  England.  It  is  to 
this  period  and  to  the  conditions  which  have  been  brought  about  under 
free  trade,  that  the  attention  of  the  reader  is  especially  called.  The  free 
trade  books,  which  have  been  circulated  through  the  world,  are  devoted  to 
the  accounts  of  the  growth  of  the  foreign  trade  of  Great  Britain  during 
the  period  immediately  following  the  adoption  of  free  trade;  while  they 
studiously  avoid  a  disclosure  of  those  conditions  which  have  followed 
increased  competing  imports  into  England. 

Since  1 860  the  world  has  been  kept  well  informed  upon  the  external 
trade  of  the  United  Kingdom.  A  record  of  its  exports  and  imports  is 
kept  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  which  is  the  statistical"  department  of  the 
government.  This  department  publishes  a  Statistical  Abstract  of  the 
exports  and  imports  of  the  United  Kingdom ;  a  similar  work  on  the  trade 
between  the  United  Kingdom  and  foreign  countries,  and  another  on  the 
trade  with  her  colonies  and  possessions.  The  vast  foreign  trade  of  the 
countn,'  has  constantly  been  pointed  to  as  an  evidence  of  its  flourishing 
condition.  Without  stopping  to  anal5'ze  or  classify  imports,  many  people 
have  taken  for  granted  that  their  increase  was  an  indication  of  prosperity-. 
The  increase  of  such  imports,  especially  since  1865,  has  overturned  all  the 
calculations  of  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates,  and  accomplished  a  result 
which  was  whollj'  unexpected.  On  the  one  hand,  the  decline  of  exports 
of  domestic  productions  .since  1874  has  added  further  evidence  of  the  decay 
of  that  industrial  system  which  at  the  close  of  her  protective  period  was  so 
pre-eminent  and  powerful.  While  we  are  able  to  gather  much  information 
from  the  official  records  of  the  British  government,  which  points  to  the 
ultimate  ruin  of  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  producing  countrj*,  we  are 
unable  from  lack  of  official  information  to  disclose  its  worst  features.  The 
free  trade  element  which  has  controlled  the  British  government  during  the 
past  fifty  years,  has  witheld  from  the  world  means  of  investigation  which 
are  acces.sible  in  the  United  States.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  government,  in  connection  with  an  enumeration  of  its  population 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


e\-ery  ten  years,  to  investigate  the  condition  of  its  industries,  and  every 
phase  of  the  industrial  life  of  its  people,  while  free  trade  England  confines 
herself  practically  to  an  enumeration  of  her  population,  leaving  the  evi- 
dence of  the  growth  or  decay  of  her  industries  to  the  guess  work  of  statis- 
ticians, who  by  estimates  and  unfair  comparisons  are  able  to  produce 
almost  an)'  result  desired.  In  1885  the  situation  had  become  so  alarm- 
ing and  the  people  had  become  so  restless  that  something  had  to  be 
done.  Parliament  appointed  a  commission  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of 
the  decline  of  trade.  This  commission  took  evidence  during  a  portion 
of  the  years  1885  and  1886.  While  it  was  controlled  by  the  free  trade 
element  of  the  country  and  as  far  as  possible  prevented  a  thorough  in- 
vestigation of  the  economic  conditions  and  the  specific  effect  of  free  trade 
upon  the  industries  of  the  country ,  sufficient  facts  were  disclosed  by  the 
evidence  of  manufacturers  and  artisans  in  relation  to  the  principal  branches 
of  manufacturing  and  trade  to  show  the  effects  of  the  system  of  free  imports. 
The  disclosures  of  the  effect  of  the  importations  of  agricultural  produce 
were  astounding.  Government  experts  were  called  before  the  commission 
and  presented  statistical  tables  and  information  from  various  departments. 
Reports  from  representatives  and  consuls  upon  the  condition  of  trade  and 
industries  in  other  countries,  were  received.  Questions  were  submitted  to 
the  chambers  of  commerce,  principal  businessmen's  associations  and  labor 
organizations,- calling  for  answers  upon  the  conditions  of  trade,  industries 
and  wages,  during  a  period  of  twenty  years,  between  1864  and  1884. 

While  the  Final  Report  of  this  commission  has  been  published  and 
commented  upon,  the  evidence  given  before  it  and  the  facts  contained  in 
the  answers  referred  to,  have  not  received  the  attention  to  which  their 
importance  entitles  them.  It  is  principallj^  from  the  proceedings  of  this 
commission  that  the  writer  has  drawn  his  information  upon  the  condition 
of  British  industries,  trade  and  commerce. 

Silk  Industry. 

So  long  as  protection  lasted,  Macclesfield  flourished. 

—  Testimony  before  the  Royal  Commission . 
In  writing  his  introduction  to  the  second  edition  of  the  "  Progress  of 
the  Nation,"  in  1846,  Mr.  G.  R.  Porter,  speaking  of  the  silk  industrs', 
said :  ' '  The  progress  of  improvement  in  our  silk  manufacture  is  still 
impeded  by  a  protective  duty  of  15  per  cent  laid  upon  foreign  production, 
and  our  tariff  continues  to  present  some  other  deformities. ' '  The  declara- 
tion that  protection  hinders  and  obstructs  the  expansion  and  growth  of  an 
industry,  was  one  of  the  prime  reasons  given  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade 
for  going  the  full  length  of  repealing  all  protective  tariffs.  It  was  to  the 
silk  industry  that  Mr.  Huskisson  referred  in  the  passage,  quoted  above,  in 
which  he  urged  parliament  to  "  unbind  the  shackles  "of  protection,  "  per- 
mit it  to  take  unrestrained  its  own  course, "  "  expose  it  to  the  wholesome 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


breezes  of  competition,"  remove  "  oppressive  protection , "  and  "  the  talent, 
the  genius,  the  enterprise,  the  capital,  the  industrj-  of  this  great  people 
will  do  the  rest." 

The  steady  growth  and  expansion  of  this  industry  under  the  influ- 
ences of  protection  up  to  i860  have  already  been  pointed  out.  From  1826 
to  1846,  it  was  shielded  from  foreign  competition  by  an  ad  valorem  duty  of 
30  per  cent.  In  the  legislation  of  1846  the  duty  was  reduced  to  an  average 
of  15  per  cent,  which  was  continued  until  i860,  at  the  time  of  the  negotia- 
tion of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  with  France.  The  ruin  of  this  industry  by 
the  adoption  of  free  trade  affords  a  striking  example  of  the  unsoundness 
and  imbecility  of  free  trade  maxims.  The  ' '  shackles  ' '  with  which  it  was 
bound  were  thrown  off.  It  was  permitted  "  to  take  unrestrained  its  own 
course."  It  was  exposed  "to  the  wholesome  breezes  of  competition." 
"  The  talent,  the  genius,  the  enterprise,  the  capital,  and  the  industry  "  of 
the  English  silk  producers  were  given  full  opportunity  to  develop  and 
expand  this  industry  to  the  highest  degree  of  perfection.  After  being 
"  burdened  "  and  its  improvement  "  impeded  "  by  protection  (as  the  free 
traders  asserted),  it  was  now  given  an  opportunity  to  exhibit  results  under 
the  stimulating  influence  of  free  trade.  What  has  been  the  result  ?  In 
i860  the  indu.strj'  was  in  a  most  flourishing  condition.  Not  only  in  popu- 
lous districts,  but  in  almost  every  village  in  the  midland  counties,  it  was 
giving  employment  to  people  and  adding  an  important  part  to  the  indus- 
trial life  of  the  kingdom.  In  i860  it  gave  employment  to  160,000  people. 
Counting  three  persons  to  a  family  it  may  be  fairly  estimated  that  480,000 
persons  found  their  means  of  support  in  this  industry.  It  appeared  from 
the  evidence  of  John  Newton,  given  before  the  Rojal  Commission,  that  in 
1885,  the  number  of  hands  employed  had  been  reduced  to  60,000.  Up  to 
this  time  then  100,000  artisans  had  been  displaced  by  foreign  importations 
and  the  goods  which  they  had  formerly  made  in  England  were  giving 
support  to  laborers  on  the  Continent.  The  decline  did  not  stop  here.  It 
appeared  by  the  census  of  factorj'  inspectors  of  1890,  that  the  number  of 
persons  employed  in  this  industry  was  only  41,277.' 

Another  evidence  of  the  decline  of  this  industry  is  found  in  the  de- 
creased consumption  of  raw  silk,  which  was  reduced  in  value  from  $32- 
530,600  in  i860  to  $7,912,605  in  1875,  and  to  $6,096,610  in  1890.  No 
sooner  were  the  duties  removed  than  the  flooding  of  English  markets  with 
French  fabrics  began.  The  importations  for  home  consumption  were 
$14,134,525  in  i860,  and  by  1870  they  had  reached  the  enormous  sum 
of  $74,660,150,  and  in  1890  they  were  $51,915,765.  Exposed  to  the 
competition  of  Continental  rivals  the  English  manufacturers  had  not  only 
been  prevented  from  extending  their  trade  and  selling  the'ir  goods  in  foreign 
markets,  but  their  own  home  market  had  been  surrendered  to  foreigners. 
It  is  now  a  conceded  fact  that  the  withdrawal  of  protection  was  the  cause 

'  The  Financial  Reform  Alnmnae  for  1894. 


FKEE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTBIES 

of  the  ruin  of  this  industry.  The  chief  centres  of  silk  manufactures  that 
were  so  prosperous  and  thriving  in  iS6o  have  been  ruined.  Macclesfield 
gave  employment  to  14,000  people  in  1859.  By  1885  the  number  had 
been  reduced  to  5000.  In  Manchester  the  industry  su.stained  forty  fac- 
tories, which  by  1886  had  been  reduced  to  five.  Instead  of  employing 
30,000  people,  as  was  the  case  in  1S60,  the  number  had  been  reduced  by 
1 886  to  3000.  Previous  to  the  adoption  of  free  trade  there  were  between 
5000  and  6000  dyers  in  England  employed  in  the  silk  dyeing  trade. 
The  number  had  been  reduced  to  1200,  by  1886.  John  Newton,  a  silk 
dyer  connected  with  the  trade,  in  his  evidence,  said: 

"It  is  the  cost  of  labor  that  has  entirely  killed  the  silk  trade  in 
Manchester. ' '  ' 

Henry  Birchenough,  a  silk  manufacturer  of  Macclesfield,  in  his 
evidence  before  the  Royal  Commission,  .said: 

Competition  is  pressing  us  increasingly,  more  especially  from  countries  which 
produce  most  cheaply;  from  Switzerland  and  from  Germany.  Our  profit  is  perpetu- 
ally cut  down.  The  price  is  controlled  by  the  merchant  who  buys  and  then  sells  to  the 
retailer  or  shipper,  and  who  also  buys  from  the  foreign  manufacturers,  placing  us  directh- 
in  competition  with  them.  That  operates  to  bring  our  prices  down  to  our  competitors 
in  trade.  Some  ten  or  fifteen  years  since  our  chief  competitor  was  France.  During 
the  last  ten  years  Germany  and  Switzerland  have  come  into  the  field.  I  attribute  the 
difference  in  price,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  rate  of  wages;  and  in  the  second  place,  to  a 
considerable  difference  in  the  charge  for  general  expenses.  The  Italians,  for  instance, 
who  work  under  the  very  cheapest  conditions,  have  been  able  to  compete  successfully 
with  all  countries,  France,  Germany-,  England  and  Switzerland  in  plain  fabrics.  They 
can  make  such  goods  by  power  looms.  They  work  about  twelve  hours  in  the  day  and 
employ  young  girls  at  low  wages.  Their  loom  sheds  are  small  structures  put  up  at  a 
very  light  expense.'' 

The  following  evidence  of  witnesses  before  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Industry  in  1885,  discloses  the  practical  operation  of  free  trade  principles 
upon  this  industry: 

Peter  Malkin,  silk  weaver  from  Macclesfield,  said: 

I  have  been  acquainted  with  the  weaving  branch  of  the  silk  trade  since  the  year 
1842,  four  j'ears  previous  to  the  repeal  of  the  Com  Laws.  About  this  time,  nameh-,  the 
year  1842,  it  was  concluded  that  there  were  in  and  about  Macclesfield,  between  4000 
and  5000  hand  looms  at  work,  and  the  trade  in  every  department  was  busy.  In  1S49, 
a  book  list  of  prices  (wages),  was  formulated  by  twelve  manufacturers  and  twelve 
weavers.  Comparing  the  prices  that  are  paid  to  the  weaver  now  and  what  he  received 
ten  years  ago,  and  to  what  the  book  list  of  1849  testifies,  I  .should  sa}-  that  the  reduc- 
tions generally  which  have  taken  place  are  15,  25  and  30  per  cent.  But  to  revert  to 
Macclesfield  as  to  how  it  fared  after  the  French  treaty  came  into  operation,  it  would 
be  correct  to  say  that  for  many  years  subsequently  the  whole  trade  of  the  town  was 
prostrated,  and  it  got  the  opprobrious  name  applied  to  it,  through  its  sad  condition,  of 
the  "  doomed  town,"  and  down  to  1S6S  there  were,  according  to  statistics  obtained  at 
the  time,  1300  houses  empty  out  of  7000. 

During  the  last  seven  years   five  mills  have  closed  in  Macclesfield,  and  one  very 

'  Royal  Commission,  Report  11,  Part  I,  p.  2S9.       -Id.,  p.  276. 


EETVHN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


important  mill.  There  are  a  great  number  of  operatives  out  of  work.  I  have  made 
particular  inquiries  about  the  wages  that  they  receive,  and  they  average  inside  between 
9f.  and  los.,  and  outside  somewhere  about  7^.  and  ys.  6d.  or  lower.  If  the  cost 
of  production  should  go  so  low  as  to  equal  the  cost  of  production  ou  the  Continent, 
we  then  should  be  in  a  fair  condition  for  sustaining  our  trade.  But  a  question  occurs 
to  me  as  to  whether  we  should  be  able  to  go  down  sufficiently  low  for  that;  but  if 
we  are  unable  to  do  so,  then  trade  must  go.' 

Bastiat  .said  that  free  trade  is  a  .self-leveling  proces.s.  This  is  trtie, 
but  it  always  levels  down,  and  never  levels  up.  It  reduces  a  country  to 
the  same  wage  rate  and  mode  of  living  as  its  competitors.  The  struggle 
does  not  cease  here,  but  goes  on.  The  downward  course  is  not  arrested 
until  one  or  the  other  is  exhausted  and  surrenders.  The  practical  opera- 
tion of  this  principle  upon  which  the  success  of  one  country  over  another 
practicing  free  trade  is  achieved,  furnishes  the  most  vital  objection  to  the 
system.  Under  universal  free  trade  the  warfare  becomes  more  intense,  the 
survivor  in  the  struggle  mu,st  necessarily  be  that  country  whose  capitalists 
will  accept  the  smallest  profits  and  whose  laborers  will  consent  to  live  on 
the  lowest  wages  and  practice  self-denial  to  the  fullest  extent.  This  system 
of  degradation  is  a  part  of  that  economic  policy  b)-  which  one  country- 
secures  an  advantage  over  another  through  what  is  so  beautifully  termed 
"  economy  of  production." 

The  witness  further  said: 

Our  decline  in  the  silk  trade  has  been  gradual  since  1S60.  This  is  not,  as  it  were, 
a  passing  depression,  it  is  a  continued  depression  since  i860,  with  the  exception  of 
1870,  and  it  has  been  gradual  since  1876  to  the  present  period.  I  attribute  the  depression 
to  the  large  increase  of  importation  of  silk  goods  which  has  taken  place.  A  great 
number  of  people  have  gone  to  America,  to  Paterson,  which  is  called  the  Macclesfield 
of  America;  they  have  gone  there  and  the  population  has  doubled  within  the  last 
twenty  years.  Q.  Now  we  will  go  to  the  question  of  wages,  you  gave  us  a  very 
interesting  answer  which  I  want  to  ask  you  about,  namely,  that  low  wages  always,  in 
your  opinion,  appear  to  create  a  diminution  of  the  work  that  was  to  be  done?  A.  It 
did  appear  to  me  to  be  so.  The  lowering  of  wages  in  any  branch  of  industry,  especi- 
ally if  it  be  a  lowering  relatively  to  the  general  rate  of  wages  throughout  the  country, 
under  the  circimistances  of  the  pressure  of  competition,  always  lowers  the  skill  and 
ability  of  the  work  people  employed  in  that  trade.  The  low  wages  in  the  silk  trade 
mean  the  depression  and  gradual  deterioration  of  the  industry  in  the  silk  trade,  and 
of  its  power  to  compete  with  skilled  industry  in  other  countries.  Where  a  low  renm- 
neration  is  offered  there  cannot  be  the  same  inducement  to  put  forth  skill  and  industr5' 
on  the  part  of  those  engaged  in  the  trade.  Therefore,  it  strikes  at  the  very  root  of 
the  spirit  of  the  traders  and  the  workers.  So  lous:  as  pivtection  lasted,  Macclesfield 
flourished. 

Tho.se  economic  writers  who,  in  the  seclusion  of  their  closets, 
furnished  the  world  with  the  speculative  reasoning  which  lias  formed 
the  basis  of  free  trade,  were  undoubtedly  sincere  men;  but  they  left  so 
many  elements  of  human  nature  out  of  their  calculations,  that  they  were 

'  Royal  Commission.  Report  III.  p.  269. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


necessarily  led  into  many  errors  which  would  not  have  been  committed  if 
they  had  written  in  recent  years,  and  been  able,  from  their  own  observation, 
to  watch  the  practical  operation  of  what  was  believed  by  them  to  be  sound 
principles.  The  proposition  that  the  strife  of  free  competition  would  give 
encouragement  and  strength  to  the  combatants,  was  announced  as  a  mere 
prophecy  before  it  had  been  tried. 

Experience  has  proven  that,  instead  of  acting  as  a  stimulus,  instead 
of  giving  new  life  and  energy,  free  trade  acts  as  a  narcotic,  deadens  the 
nerves,  and  destroys  hope  and  confidence. 

James  Twemlow,  silk  weaver,  of  Macclesfield,  said: 

There  was  one  question  put  with  respect  to  the  poverty  of  the  town,  as  to  which 
I  can  say  that  it  never  was  in  such  a  state  before.  It  so  happens  that  I  went  to  the 
Union  Workhouse  last  Monday,  and  made  inquiries  as  to  the  number  of  weavers  on 
the  books,  and  that  were  inside.  I  did  so  with  reference  to  statements  that  had  been 
made  that  there  was  no  great  depression,  and  no  great  calls  upon  the  funds  of  the 
Union ;  I  found  that  there  are  more  weavers  in  the  Macclesfield  Union  now,  who  are 
able  to  work  if  they  could  get  work,  outside,  than  ever  there  were  before ;  and  that 
there  are  more  applications  for  relief  than  there  ever  has  been  for  the  last  twenty- 
five  years.  Besides  that,  taking  the  official  evidence  that  is  given  from  books  and 
from  experience,  there  are  scores  of  families  that  will  suffer  any  privation,  beyond  all 
question,  before  they  will  apply  for  relief  in  any  shape  or  form. 

Q.  Do  you  see  any  increasing  tendency  to  emigration  on  the  part  of  skilled  work- 
people in  Macclesfield  ?  A.  Yes;  young  men  that  have  learued  their  trade  get  off  as  fast 
as  they  can  to  America;  that  is  the  principal  place  where  they  are  going  to.  They  get 
50  or  60  per  cent  more  for  their  work  than  we  get  at  Macclesfield.' 

Robert  Clark,  Macclesfield  silk  weaver,  said  on  examination  : 

When  I  find  that  all  the  countries  iu  the  world  close  their  markets  to  us,  and  are 
not  allowing  our  manufactured  goods  to  go  in  without  a  duty,  and  they  are  better 
situated  than  us  so  far  as  silk  is  concerned,  I  say  it  is  time  that  we  bethought  ourselves 
to  see  whether  we  could  not  secure  our  own  market  by  putting  on  some  small  tariff 
that  would  contriljute  to  the  revenue,  and  also  be  a  little  protection  to  the  trade  which 
is  suffering  under  this  foreign  competition.  There  are  many  trades  that  are  suffering. 
If  my  income  is  threatened,  which  is  yi.  M.  to  9^.  a  week,  and  I  have  no  purchasing 
power,  and  if  you  limit  the  trades  of  the  country  to  two  or  three,  and  I  cannot  pur- 
chase of  those  other  trades,  the  depression  becomes  general.  With  regard  to  the 
example  of  putting  a  tax  on  corn,  I  say  that  if  I  am  benefited  by  protection,  every  other 
trade  that  is  suffering  from  foreign  competition  ought  to  be  considered  as  well  as 
myself,  unless  we  get  universal  free  trade.  It  would  give  employment  to  people  if  we 
had  universal  free  trade;  but  the  tendency  seems  to  be  that  every  country  fosters  their 
own  trade  and  their  home  products;  and  the  French  manufacturer  floods  our  market 
with  his  surplus  produce. 

If  I  had  the  means  to  do  it,  I  would  scarcely  go  home  again.  I  would  go  right  off  to 
America  myself;  but  I  have  not  the  means.  Of  course  I  have  no  friends  in  America 
who  would  advance  the  money.  That  is  what  enables  the  people  to  go  over  from 
Macclesfield;  it  is  not  the  money  that  they  have  themselves;  their  friends  in  Paterson 
send  them  over  money,  and  it  is  in  that  way  that  hundreds  have  gone  out,  and  it  is 
in  that  way  that  they  are  going  out  at  the  present  moment.' 

'  Royal  Commission,  Report  III,   p.  280. 


BETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Mr.  J.  Wright,  president  of  the  Macclesfield  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
said: 

I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  unless  we  can  have  free  trade  pure  and  simple,  or 
on  the  other  hand  we  revert  to  a  protective  policy,  the  silk  trade  is  doomed  to  die  out  in 
this  country.  Technical  education  has  been  instanced  and  we  have  heard  to-day  tliat 
Lyons  has  been  the  home  of  technical  education  for  years  past.  That  being  the  case, 
I  ask  myself  the  question  why  is  it  that  Germany,  Switzerland  and  Italy  are  taking 
away  trade  from  Lyons  and  from  France,  because  in  Italy  they  have  not  enjoyed  to  the 
same  extent  technical  education — therefore,  if  we  rely  upon  technical  education  in 
this  country  to  resuscitate  the  silk  trade  I  think  we  may  well  point  to  Lyons  and  ask 
why  it  is  that  it  has  not  been  retained  there.  It  is  on  account  of  the  cheap  labor;  that  is 
self-evident  when  I  say  that  in  the  18,000  silk  looms  now  employed  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Lake  Como,  the  work  people  only  earn  from  8d.  to  grf.  English  money  a  day,  for 
fourteen  hoiurs  per  day.  Q.  Then  is  your  remedy  for-the  depression  here  to  get  cheap 
labor?  A.  No,  I  consider  that  labor  is  cheap  enough  in  this  countrj-;  we  are  not  now 
hampered  with  any  want  of  cheap  labor  in  our  own  trade,  but  the  depression  has 
brovight  that  state  of  things  about  entirely.  We  find  everj'  year  that  the  Continental 
market  is  being  gradually  closed  against  us,  and  we  cannot  for  the  life  of  us  find  out 
any  fresh  markets. ' 

If  the  witness  had  lived  in  the  United  States  during  the  recent  agita- 
tion of  the  tariff  question,  he  would  have  learned  of  those  "markets  of 
the  world,"  which  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  associates  have  discovered  for 
the  American  manufacturers  to  rush  into  as  soon  as  they  adopt  free  trade. 
The  witness  further  said: 

There  is  no  lack  of  enterprise,  considering  the  great  depression  we  have  suffered 
of  late  years;  but  when  there  have  been  years  of  almost  suffering,  and  a  downward 
tendency  ever  since  the  Cobden  Treaty,  people  begin  to  lose  heart  as  thej- lose  money. 
I  may  say  to  gentlemen  who  do  not  accept  my  opinion  on  this  question,  that  we  do 
not  like  even  mentioning  the  word  "  protection,"  but  we  do  not  realh-  see  any  chance 
of  a  revival  of  English  trade  in  this  country  unless  this  increasing  and  severe  com- 
petition from  abroad  is  met  with  something  like  retaliatory  duties,  or  a  revised  tariff. 
I  only  see  one  remedy.  In  i86r,  when  there  were,  I  think,  upwards  of  forty  silk 
manufacturers  in  the  neighborhood  of  Manchester,  which  is  eighteen  miles  from 
Macclesfield,  I  went  down  upon  a  deputation  from  Macclesfield  to  urge  the  Manchester 
manufacturers  not  to  consent  to  the  conditions  of  the  Cobden  Treaty.  There  were 
twenty-nine  manufacturers  at  the  time  who  signed  the  Cobden  Treaty,  and  I  believe 
only  two  of  them  are  in  existence  as  tradesmen  to-day;  and  those  gentlemen,  and  all 
connected  with  the  inauguration  of  that  treaty  in  Manchester,  would  tell  the  Com- 
missioners to-day  that  they  regretted  having  done  what  they  did  at  the  time,  and  that 
they  believe  that  it  has  been  fatal  to  the  silk  trade  of  England;  and  that  had  Mr. 
Cobden  been  alive,  those  gentlemen  who  knew  him  personally  feel  that  he  would  have 
been  one  of  the  very  first  to  have  considered  that  a  great  error  had  been  made.'- 

The  foregoing  evidence  is  most  important  from  a  strictl}'  economic 
point  of  view.  It  utterly  annihilates  one  of  the  cardinal  scientific  dogmas 
of  free  trade.     The  chief  argument  used  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates 


'  Koyal  Commission,  Report  III.,  p.  283. 


'  Id.,  Report  II.,  Part  I.,  p.  287. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  IXDVSTIiJES. 


to  induce  the  silk  manufacturers  of  England  to  give  their  approval  to  free 
trade  was,  that  the  effect  of  free  competition  would  stimulate  them  to  the 
exercise  of  such  a  high  degree  of  skill  that  they  could  outstrip  all  rivals; 
that  free  trade  instead  of  pulling  them  down  would  lift  them  up.  It  is 
important  to  know  that  the  question  of  wages,  after  all,  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  the  whole  controversj-.  High  wages,  it  seems,  do  not  bring  cheap 
goods,  but  low  wages  do.  The  excessive  competition  which  forces  a 
reduction  of  wages,  and  a  loss  of  profit,  instead  of  stimulating  to  new 
exertions,  operates  to  destroy  ability  to  compete.  As  Mr.  Wright  says, 
"  the  people  begin  to  lose  heart  as  they  lose  money."  The  suffering 
and  degradation  wrought  by  the  destruction  of  this  industry-,  is  treated 
with  callous  indifference  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade.  The  ' '  cheap 
loaf"  has  not  conipen.sated  the  artisan  for  the  reduction  in  his  wages. 
Cheapness  is  here  exemplified.  As  almshouses  were  being  filled,  and  the 
ruin  of  this  industry  progressed,  the  free  trade  parrot-like  chatter  was 
heard,  "try  something  else."  This  was  the  only  relief  offered,  when 
there  was  nothing  else  to  try. 

October  19,  1890,  a  special  commissioner  of  the  Manchester  newspaper. 
The  Umpire,  visited  Macclesfield  and  Congleton  to  investigate  the  situa- 
tion. At  the  close  of  an  article  headed,  "Working  for  Death,"  after 
reviewing  the  terrible  hardships  and  suffering  of  the  work  people  and 
showing  that  wages  of  men  were  ten  shillings  ($2.40)  a  week,  and  women 
were  working  for  six  and  seven  shillings  a  week.     He  said  : 

Is  it  worth  while  to  continue  at  the  work?  I  asked  a  cutter.  "I  don't  know 
whether  it  is  worth  while, ' '  he  answered,  ' '  but  what  must  we  do  ?  We  are  in  it,  and  must 
stick  at  it.  We  have  to  make  our  wives  and  children  stick  too.  It  is  wrong  and  I 
know  it,  but  we  cannot  help  ourselves.  It  is  brutal,  sir,  nothing  short  of  it  ;  but,  God 
knows,  we  cannot  help  ourselves." 

In  conclusion  the  writer  of  the  article  said  : 

And  isn't  the  British  lion  trying  to  put  down  some  slave  traffic  somewhere  ? 
Truly,  we  English  are  about  the  finest  lot  of  pharisaical  humbugs  on  the  face  of  this 
fair  earth.  It's  sickening  to  think  of,  though  we  ax?  a  truly  pious  people.  We  go  to 
our  .several  little  Bethels  on  Sunday,  and  thank  God  that  we  are  not  as  other  men,  and 
on  the  other  six  days  of  the  week  we  grind  down  the  poor,  and  the  unfortunate,  and 
the  helpless,  until  life  is  a  hell,  and  death  a  welcome  exit  from  starvation  and  misery, 
and  degradation,  and  disgrace.  I  say,  a  man  who  depends  upon  such  remuneration 
as  I  have  just  mentioned  above,  for  his  daily  bread,  does  not  live  in  the  true  sense  of 
the  word — he  exists  ;  nothing  more. 

Cotton  Industry. 

The  owners  of  cotton  mills  in  Manchester  were  more  directly  respon- 
sible for  riveting  the  fetters  of  free  trade  on  the  English  people,  than  any 
other  body  of  men.  They  had  become  rich,  powerful  and  arrogant, 
through  the  vast  accumulation  of  wealth  acquired  in  this  trade.  Their 
pre-eminence  arose  largely  from  having  first  employed  machinery,  and  by 


IIETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


prohibiting  its  export  secured  to  themselves  a  monopoly  of  its  use.  It 
was  believed  by  Mr.  McCulloch  and  other  eminent  authorities,  that  the 
advantages  which  they  possessed  in  1846,  could  be  maintained,  and 
through  their  ability  to  produce  a  vast  surplus  for  export,  that  foreign 
markets  would  be  so  flooded  with  this  fabric,  that  the  rise  of  cotton 
factories  in  other  countries  would  be  prevented.  This  end  could,  undoubt- 
edly, have  been  accomplished,  had  the  United  States  and  the  Continent 
joined  in  the  free  trade  policy  with  England,  and  exposed  their  capitalists 
and  artisans  to  the  raids  which  would  have  been  made  upon  them  by  the 
cotton  lords  of  Manchester.  Cobden  and  his  associates  formed  a  low 
estimate  of  the  patriotism  and  ability  of  the  statesmen  and  people  of  those 
countries.  While  the  cotton  industry  of  England  is  to-day  more  vast 
than  that  of  any  other  countrj',  during  the  past  twenty-five  years  it  has 
shown  very  marked  evidences  of  a  decline.  For  a  time,  it  held  abso- 
lutely its  home  market  and  found  no  rivals  in  those  countries  equally 
accessible  to  all.  English  manufacturers  had  reached  such  a  degree  of 
skill  and  economy  in  production,  having  more  capital,  the  most  efficient 
machinery,  and  skillful  artisans,  that  they  were  enabled  to  invade  those 
countries  which  had  put  up  protective  barriers,  and  carry  on  a  sharp 
competition  against  protected  industries.  The  struggle  for  supremacy 
in  this  industry  has  been  called  the  battle  of  fabrics.  The  English 
manufacturers  on  one  side,  seeking  by  diplomacy,  intrigue,  and  inter- 
meddling in  the  affairs  of  foreign  states,  to  prevent  legislation  favorable 
to  the  existence  of  domestic  industries,  reaped  large  p"rofits  from  sales 
in  their  colonies  and  in  neutral  markets,  where  there  were  none  to  contest 
prices,  but  sold  at  small  profits,  and  even  at  a  loss  in  other  locali- 
ties, to  harass,  cripple  and  bankrupt  those  who  were  seeking  to  supply 
the  home  trade.  The  smooth  and  beautiful  theories  of  speculative 
economic  writers  have  played  no  part  in  the  cut-throat  policy  that 
has  been  pursued.  The  conspiracy  against  civilization  and  humanity, 
entered  into  by  the  cotton  manufacturers  of  England,  was  the  most  far- 
reaching  and  gigantic  of  its  kind  ever  formed.  The  agriculturists  at 
home  were  first  marked  for  destruction,  and  through  false  pretences  and 
the  most  infamous  frauds  ever  practiced  on  a  people,  were  induced  to 
abandon  the  only  policy  under  which  they  could  prosper.  The  ruin  of 
the  agricultural  interests  of  England  has  inflicted  a  more  lasting  and 
greater  injury  upon  the  people  of  that  country,  than  would  have  followed 
the  complete  annihilation  of  the  cotton  industry.  The  definite  purpose 
entered  upon  to  make  ' '  cheapness  ' '  the  basis  of  the  industrial  life  of  the 
English  people  has  culminated  in  a  degree  of  misery-  and  degradation 
among  the  English  laborers,  not  to  be  foinid  in  any  other  civilized  com- 
munity. The  cotton  industry  was  to  be  built  up  by  sacrificing  the  agri- 
culturists of  the  realm,  and  by  condemning  the  artisans  of  England  to  a 
wage  rate  which  could  not  possibly  rise  above  the  means  of  subsistence. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


In  bringing  about  "  cheapness  "  the  poHcy  of  free  trade  has  been  a 
success,  but  as  a  means  of  securing  thrift,  enterprise  and  prosperity  it  has 
proven  a  failure.  The  senseless  talk  about  benefiting  the  consumers  and 
letting  the  producers  take  care  of  themselves  has  worked  out  its  legitimate 
end  in  ruining  the  producers,  who  form  the  great  body  of  consumers.  The 
home  market  has  been  in  part  destroyed  by  reducing  and  keeping  at  a  low 
point  the  purchasing  power  of  the  great  mass  of  the  English  people.  Even 
the  cotton  industry,  the  one  most  likely  to  thrive  under  free  trade  condi- 
tions, has  been  seriously  affected  by  the  results  which  have  followed  the 
teachings  of  the  Manchester  School.  Continental  rivals,  with  an  abund- 
ance of  accumulated  capital,  machinery  equally  efficient  with  that  used  in 
Great  Britain,  with  densely  populated  centres  of  skilled  artisans  working 
at  low  wages  and  during  long  hours,  have  entered  the  contest  for  supre- 
macy in  neutral  markets,  and  to  some  extent  invaded  England  herself. 
But  a  more  serious  problem  than  this  has  recently  been  presented.  One 
which  is  shaking  the  confidence  of  many  Englishmen  in  the  wisdom  of  free 
trade,  one  which  is  creating  consternation  and  alarm  in  the  cotton  manu- 
facturing centres  of  Western  Europe.  Cotton  manufacturing  is  being 
established  in  China,  Japan  and  India.  The  millions  of  Asiatic  laborers 
who  can  be  employed  for  a  few  cents  a  day  are  being  trained  in  spinning 
and  weaving.  The  surplus  capital  of  Western  Europe  is  finding  invest- 
ment in  these  countries.  Vast  cotton  factories  have  been  constructed  and 
equipped  with  the  best  machinery  and  all  modern  appliances,  and,  under 
the  direction  and  control  of  experienced  Europeans,  they  are  producing 
cotton  fabrics  at  a  marvelously  low  cost.  These  markets,  which  have  so 
long  been  exclusively  controlled  by  English  manufacturers,  are  being 
transferred  to  their  new  rivals.  Present  indications  point  to  such  an  ex- 
pansion and  increase  of  production  under  the  conditions  existing  in  Asia, 
that  the  time  may  come  when  nothing  but  protective  tariffs  will  save  Eng- 
land from  the  complete  annihilation  of  this  industry  by  goods  made  by  the 
cunning,  apt  and  ingenious  people  of  the  East.  Even  those  free  traders  in 
England  who  have  been  so  solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  consumers  are 
alarmed  at  the  situation.  According  to  strict  free  trade  notions  such  an 
event  would  prove  a  blessing,  rather  than  a  misfortune.  Yet  the  evidence 
of  English  manufacturers,  given  before  the  Royal  Commission,  shows  that 
such  a  fallacy  has  seen  its  best  days  even  in  England.  Should  the 
development  of  the  cotton  industry  in  the  East  go  no  farther  than  to 
supply  their  home  markets,  which  seems  to  be  verj^  probable,  it  would 
result  to  a  serious  injurj'  to  England. 

"  In  1889  British  East  Indies  absorbed  42.76  per  cent  of  exported  Brit- 
ish manufactured  cotton  goods,  and  19.26  per  cent  of  exported  British  yarn, 
whilst  China  and  the  far  East  took  13. 18  per  cent  of  manufactured  cotton 
goods   and  14.15  per  cent  of  yarn."  ' 

-  Manchester  Courier. 


RETURN  ro  FREE  TRADE. 


The  menacing  feature  of  the  development  of  the  cotton  industry  in 
Asia  was  set  forth  in  the  evidence  of  Mr.  George  Lord,  member  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Manchester,  before  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Depression  of  Trade,  February  17,  1886,  as  follows: 

Q.  Have  you  anything  to  say  with  regard  to  the  present  position  of  the  cotton  trade 
in  this  country,  and  its  course  during  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  or  as  to  the  causes 
of  the  depression  which  has  been  complained  of  ?  A.  I  have  some  interesting  tables  here 
with  regard  to  the  subject  of  competition  from  Bombay  mills.  My  partner  in  Bombaj- 
made  up,  with  the  assistance  of  others,  at  the  end  of  September  last,  a  most  complete 
statement  down  to  that  date,  of  the  mills  in  India,  from  which  it  appears  that 
there  were  then  ninety-two  mills  in  existence.  I  should  say  that  when  I 
arrived  in  Bombay,  in  1857,  the  first  mills  had  just  been  started  there.  There 
were  only  two  mills  there  at  that  time,  and  since  then  they  have  gone  on  in- 
creasing very  rapidly.  In  September  last  there  were  ninety-two  mills  altogether. 
It  was  difficult  to  get  information  with  regard  to  five  of  them,  but  I  have  very  detailed 
information  with  regard  to  the  other  eighty-seven  mills;  the  spindles  at  work  then 
were  2,145,000,  and  there  were  16,537  looms.  In  the  tables  that  I  have  put 
in,  table  C  shows  that  out  of  those  92  mills  there  were  in  the  Bombay  Presidency  68, 
namely,  in  the  city  of  Bombay  itself,  49,  and  19  in  the  Mofussil,  that  is  in  the  Presi- 
dency of  Bombay.  With  regard  to  your  lordship's  question  as  to  the  competition,  I 
have  here,  which  I  will  hand  in,  a  table  marked  C  of  the  exports  of  British  and  Bombay 
yarns  to  China  and  Japan,  from  the  year  1S67  up  to  the  thirty-first  of  December,  1885,  the 
end  of  last  year  (delivering  in  the  same).  The  first  year  in-  which  Bombay  figured  largely 
as  an  exporter  of  yarn  to  China  and  Japan,  is  1876,  when  she  sent  16,216  bales,  and 
the  increase  has  been  gradual  and  rapid  until  1885,  last  year,  when  she  sent  173,000 
bales,  more  than  ten  times  as  much;  and,  in  the  meantime,  England  had  sent  to  the 
same  markets,  China  and  Japan,  in  1876,  73,765  bales,  whilst  last  year  only  80,000  bales 
were  sent,  so  that  there  is  an  increase  of  only  7000  bales  of  English  yarn  in  ten  years, 
whilst  Bombay  had  increased  from  16,000  to  173,000.  Mr.  Houldsworth  has  called  my 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  year  1S80  the  export  of  English  yarn  had  risen  to 
106,000  bales,  so  that  since  1880  there  has  been  a  falling  off  of  26,000.  Q.  How 
has  it  been  with  regard  to  the  Bombay  mills?  A.  The  Bombay  mills  in  that  period 
have  grown  from  i5,ooo  to  173,000  bales,  so  that  you  may  take  it  at  once  that  that  is 
one  cause  of  our  depression.  I  hand  in  another  table,  D,  which  I  received  last  week 
from  my  partner  in  Bombay,  of  the  shipments  of  piece  goods  and  yarns  together  from 
the  Bombay  mills,  and  that  shows  that  of  the  yarn  spun  in  Bombay  75  per  cent  was 
exported  amongst  other  markets,  principally  to  China  and  Japan,  and  only  25  per 
cent  of  Bombay  spun  yarn  was  used  in  India  proper;  whilst  piece  goods  the  reverse 
was  the  case,  only  27  per  cent  was  exported  and  73  per  cent  was  used  in  India. 
From  one  of  the  tables  that  I  have  put  in,  table  F,  we  find  how  large  a  customer  India 
is.  Of  the  total  exports  of  cotton  goods  and  yarns  (for  this  purpose  I  leave  out  such 
things  as  lace,  thread  and  so  on,  and  simply  take  cotton  goods,  calicoes  and  yarns)  the 
total  export  in  the  year  1884  was  65,000,000  pounds,  and  of  that  India  took 
20,000,000  pounds,  China  6,000,000  pounds;  and  of  the  total  in  1885  of  60,000,000, 
India  took  19,000,000  pounds,  which  is  one-third  of  the  whole;  the  falling  off  in  1885 
is  owing  partly  to  the  lower  prices.' 

The  growth  of  this  industry  in  Japan  since  1886  will  be  pointed  out 
later.  Some  very  interesting  facts  with  reference  to  the  present  conditio'n 
of  cotton  manufacturing    in    England    were   given  by    Samuel    Andrew, 

I  Report  II.,  Part  I.,  p.  182. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 

representative  of  the  Oldham  Cotton  Spinners'  Association,  before  the 
Royal  Commission. 

Q.  Are  there  any  special  causes  wfiich  tend  to  prevent  our  producing  either  as 
cheaply  or  as  well  as  our  foreign  competitors  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  there  are  any 
special  causes.  I  could  not  allege  any  for  the  moment.  I  believe  that  they  certainly 
get  cheaper  labor  abroad.  Q.  To  what  countries  are  you  alluding?  A.  In  the  old  city 
•of  Venice,  and  in  the  immediate  neighborhood,  I  have  been  told  that  there  have  been 
several  large  cotton  spinning  mills  and  manufactories  established  within  recent  j-ears, 
and  I  am  told  that  in  those  mills  they  work  all  the  hours  that  it  is  possible  to  work, 
132  hours  a  week  ;  but  I  may  tell  you  that  I  have  returns  from  one  of  those  mills  show- 
ing the  hanks  produced  per  spindle.  I  have  had  the  counts  given  to  me  and  I  know 
that  there  is  no  spindle  made  in  England  that  can  produce  such  a  number  of  hanks  in 
the  time  that  it  has  to  work  here  in  England.  For  instance,  I  find  that  in  Venice  they 
are  producing  thirties  counts,  and  they  are  producing  fifty  and  sixty  hanks  per  spindle 
per  week.  That  is  more  than  we  can  do,  for  we  think  ourselves  well  off  if  we  pro- 
duce about  twenty-eight.  That  must  have  a  very  great  influence  upon  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction. It  is  the  pace  that  kills,  and  if  these  people  are  producing  at  a  larger  rate 
than  we  can  do  on  account  of  our  number  of  hours  being  limited,  that  is  an  element 
of  danger  to  our  trade,  so  far  as  it  goes. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  duties  charged  upon  our  goods  in  foreign  countries  has 
an)-  effect  upon  our  trade  ?  A.  No  doubt  it  has  to  some  extent,  because  we  have  been 
seeking  all  along  for  a  great  number  of  years  to  get  such  tariff  charges  reduced.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  our  trade  is  suffering  very  greatly  from  over-production,  but  it  is 
not  that  we  are  producing  more  than  the  world  really  requires,  but  that  we  are  pro- 
ducing more  than  the  world  can  really  afford  to  pay  for,  and  this  points  to  the 
importance  of  lessening  the  cost  of  production  to  the  last  possible  degree.' 

Protection  looks  to  the  welfare  of  the  consumer  by  preserving  home 
industries,  maintaining  good  wages,  thereby  enhancing  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  masses  ;  while  free  trade  seeks  to  reduce  the  cost  of  prodtic- 
tion  by  cutting  wages,  thereby  diminishing  spendable  incomes  and  making 
the  buyers  poor.  If  English  n^ufacturers  would  pay  more  attention  to 
the  home  market  b}^  protecting  and  increasing  the  wealth  of  Englishmen, 
there  would  be  less  necessity  for  reducing  wages  to  compete  with  the  Con- 
tinent, and  less  complaint  of  the  poverty  of  customers. 

The  witness  further  said  : 

Within  the  past  few  weeks  we  have  been  making  an  effort  to  reduce  wages,  and 
the  cause  of  our  making  that  stand  has  been  the  very  unremunerative  state  of  the 
trade,  and  that  as  the  wages,  notwithstanding  that  they  have  been  reduced  to  some 
extent,  have  not  been  reduced  in  anything  like  the  proportion  in  which  the  profits  of 
the  manufacturers  have  been  reduced.  We  consider  that  it  is  one  of  those  things 
which  the  operatives  should  consider  more  favorably  than  they  have  considered  it  up 
to  the  present.  Q.  Is  there  any  other  means  of  reducing  the  cost  of  production  ? 
A.  I  do  not  think  there  is  at  present.  I  believe  that  everything  has  been  done  in  the 
shape  of  economy  in  the  cotton  mills. 

Everything  has  been  done  to  reduce  the  cost  of  production  to  reach 
a  degree  of  cheapness  to  undersell  competitors.  Profits  have  been  sur- 
rendered, wages  have  been  reduced,  and  3'et  they   mtist  be  driven  down 

•  Report  II.,  Part  I.,  p.  i.ij. 


RErUHN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


still  lower.     To  whom  is  such  an  industry  profitable  ?     Not  to  the  capi- 
talist, not  to  the  wage  earner,  and  if  not  to  these,  certainly  not  to  the  nation. 

The  witness  continued : 
Q.  Is  there  any  competition    at   Oldham  between   one  company  and  another? 
A.  Practically  there  is  no  competition,  because  the  lines  that  enter  Oldham  agree  not 
to  outbid  each  other.     They  agree  to  charge  a  certain  price  from  a  certain  point, 
whichever  company  is  to  bring  the  traffic. 

So  it  appears  that  even  in  the  cotton  industry,  protection  in  the  United 
States  is  not  the  "mother  of  trusts."  Free  trade  in  England  has  not 
relieved  the  people  from  combinations  of  this  character. 

The  following  evidence  of  numerous  experienced  cotton  manufacturers, 
upon  the  various  phases  of  the  question  of  competition,  and  the  growth  of 
industries  in  other  countries,  will  lead  the  reader  at  once  to  conclude  that 
it  will  be  wise  for  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  preser\'e  their  home 
market,  rather  than  to  subject  their  industries  to  the  life-and-death  struggle 
which  has  raged  in  England  since  the  advent  of  free  trade.  The  very 
existence  of  the  cotton  industry  in  Great  Britain,  with  all  her  vast  facili- 
ties for  production  is  threatened.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  the  people 
of  the  United  States  paying  much  higher  wages,  could  not  exist  for  a 
single  moment  under  free  trade  ;  exposed  to  an  inundation  of  foreign 
fabrics,  such  as  would  be  absolutely  certain  to  take  place  upon  the  removal 
of  protective  tariffs.  The  evidence  is  so  pointed  and  clear,  that  comment 
is  scarcely  necessary. 

Thomas  Stuttard,  member  of  the  firm  of  James  Stuttard  &  Son, 
cotton  spinners,  carrying  on  business  at  several  large  mills,  gave  the  fol- 
lowing evidence  before  the  Commission: 

Q.  Would  you  say  that  the  business  is  now  in  a  condition  of  prosperity  or  depres- 
sion ?  A.  Last  year  it  was  certainly  in  a  state  jfl^.great  depression,  at  the  present  time 
one-half  of  it  is  in  very  great  depression,  that  "is,  the  spinning  branch.  It  has  mani- 
fested itself  by  the  falling  off  in  the  demand  for  goods  and  by  the  fact  of  the  enormous 
number  of  looms  which  have  been  stopped  by  the  bad  prices  and  by  the  unprofitable- 
ness of  the  work.  The  Manchester  papers  mention  that  50,000  to  100,000  looms  had 
been  stopped  at  various  times  during  the  year  1SS5.  The  number  of  men  employed  has 
diminished.  There  has  been  a  reduction  in  wages  in  spinning  of  5  per  cent  at  Oldham. 
Two  or  three  years  ago  there  was  a  reduction  in  the  wages  paid  for  weaving.  There 
has  been  a  greater  falling  off  (in  trade)  in  the  home  market  than  there  has  been  in  the 
foreign  market.  Q.  How  do  you  account  for  that?  A.  In  the  home  trade,  by  the- 
impoverishment  of  the  land-owning  class  and  farming  class.' 

' '  By  the  impoverishment  of  the  land-owning  class. ' '  What  an  admis- 
sion  from  a  cotton  mantifacturer  !  Less  than  fortj-  3'ears  ago  it  was  b)-  the 
impoverishment  of  this  class  that  the  cotton  lords  were  to  be  made  rich. 
The  farmers  were  to  be  drummed  out  of  the  country.  Now  the>-  are 
needed  for  customers  to  sustain  a  decaying  industry. 

It  has  continued  to  suffer  by  foreign  competition  in  the  cotton  trade  generally,  to 
the  extent,  probably,  of  one  tenth  part  of  the  whole  consumption.    Foreign  goods  come 
'  Second  Rep.,  Part  I.,  p.  167. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


into  the  home  market  in  competition  with  us.  Gray  and  bleached  calicoes,  dyed, 
printed  and  fancy  fabrics,  and  especially  cotton  velvets,  they  come  from  France,  Bel- 
gium and  Germany.  A  few  have  come  from  America,  but  not  to  any  great  extent. 
The  goods  which  we  used  to  make  for  Germany  have  lessened  in  sale  year  by  year, 
and  we  only  sell  comparatively  small  quantities,  and  those  go  mostly  to  Hamburg,  a 
free  town. 

O.  Are  there  any  classes  of  goods  that  you  are  acquainted  with,  with  regard  to 
which  the  foreigner,  either  German  or  French,  can  send  the  same  article  into  this 
country  cheaper  than  it  can  be  made  in  this  country  ?  A.  If  the  manufacturers  in 
any  part  of  the  Continent,  say  either  Germany,  France  or  Belgium,  were  placed  in  the 
competitive  circumstances  in  which  the  Lancashire  manufacturers  have  been  placed 
the  last  twelve  months,  with  the  necessity  that  they  would  be  under  to  sell  at  a  slight 
loss  the  same  as  we  do  in  Lancashire;  and  if  the}'  were  to  sell  their  goods  without  any 
profit  or.  any  return  toward  the  capital  invested  in  the  business,  I  have  but  little 
doubt  but  what  those  foreign  makers  could  easily  send  goods  into  Manchester  itself  at 
lower  prices  than  the  Manchester  manufacturers  can  make  them.  Foreign  competi- 
tion will  undoubtedly  grow  each  year  with  increasing  force.  Q.  Then  I  under- 
stand that  you  consider  that  the  foreign  manufacturer  probably  is  in  better  condition 
to  turn  out  cheaper  goods  than  we  are  in  this  country?  A.  He  is  in  a  very  much 
better  condition  for  fighting  us.  If  I,  for  example,  want  to  make  an  impression 
in  a  neutral  country  and  have  to  fight  opponents  there,  I  can  fight  them  a  great 
deal  better  if  I  am  tolerably  well  off  than  if  I  am  not.  Under  the  present  system 
many  of  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  are  getting  poorer  and  poorer  ;  they 
have  not  the  backbone;  and  when  we  are  told  to  improve  our  style  and  employ  new 
designers,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  it  is  only  a  very  limited  few  of  us  who  can  afford 
to  indulge  in  that  luxury.  The  foreign  manufacturers  are  better  off  than  English 
manufacturers.  In  the  first  place,  they  have  a  certain  market  in  their  own  country  for 
their  own  goods. 

Yet  this  was  the  advice  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  gave  to  the 
farmers  in  1854,  to  adopt  more  scientific  methods.  It  failed  there  as  it 
will  fail  now.  This  is  the  only  remedy  the  professional  free  trader  offers. 
The  witness,  speaking  of  the  strength  of  foreign  manufacturers,  said: 

There  is  no  outside  competition  of  any  moment,  and  if  they  choose  to  send  any  of 
their  surplus  goods  into  Great  Britain  or  into  neutral  markets,  they  are  sure  almost  to 
present  some  little  variations  from  the  current  British  work,  and  may  thus  command 
a  sale. 

Q.  Are  you  in  favor  of  anything  being  done  in  this  country  to  place  duties  on 
foreign  manufactures  that  come  into  England  ?  A.  Personally,  most  decidedly.  I 
should  simply  do  it  not  only  as  a  matter  of  justice,  and  not  to  create  a  monopoly  for 
the  manufacturers,  but  simply  to  place  the  foreigners  on  a  basis  of  equality  with  our 
native  manufacturers.  The  workers  of  this  country  have  to  find  the  taxes  of  the 
country  and  that  sort  of  thing,  and  it  is  only  right  and  just  that  the  foreigners  should 
pay  on  imported  foreign  labor  just  as  much  as  would  equal  that  amount.  If  we  can 
domains   employment  for   our  work  people,  by  a  small  10 


^eep 


ithm  our  ow 
per  cent  dutv,  that  is  a  thing  to  be  much  desired.  I  have  conversed  with  many  of  our 
operators  and  they  would  be  quite  willing  to  pay  a  farthing  more  a  loaf  for  their  bread 
and  have  constant  employment,  and  thus  have  a  little  more  money. 

In  full  work  we  employ  between  1000  and  iioo  work  people,  but  latterly  about 
800  to  850.  Q.  At  the  present  moment  are  the  weavers  in  your  own  mills  earning  an 
average  of  20i.  a  week  ?  A.  No.  Q.  Would  it  be  15^.  a  week  ?  A.  I  think  so,  though 
we  have  a  good  deal  standing  more  or  less,  for  lack  of  work.     Q.  (Chairman.)  I  think 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


you  have  a  letter  you  wish  to  lay  before  the  Commission  ?  A.  I  was  requested  by  one 
of  our  customers  to  read  this  letter.  It  is  from  George  Morris,  a  merchant  who  trades 
to  the  West  Indies,  South  America,  the  Mauritius  and  elsewhere.  With  regard  to  the 
cotton  trade  depression  he  says: 

"  What  Lancashire  is  suffering  from  mostly  now  is  the  smallness  or  absence  of 
profits  altogether;  this  is  best  illustrated  by  a  case  of  actual  fact.  A  manufacturer  of 
fine  shirtings,  cambrics,  etc.,  told  me  that  twenty  or  thirty  years  ago  we  used  to  make 
half  a  crown  a  piece  profit  regularly,  but  then  our  goods  went  to  the  United  States, 
Germany,  Russia,  and  even  Spain;  now  they  are  nearly  all  shut  out,  except  the  finest 
qualities  which  are  used  by  the  rich  people  in  these  countries  and  where  the  duty  is 
no  object.  Now  nearly  all  our  stuff  goes  to  the  far  East,  and  we  often  do  not  make 
even  a  penny  a  piece  on  them.  The  duties  imposed  in  this  country  are,  unfortunately, 
nearly  all  on  the  productions  of  our  best  customers,  such  as  coffee,  tea,  wine  and 
tobacco,  coming  from  countries  where  '  they  spin  not  neither  do  they  weave, '_  but  our 
policy  is  driving  them  to  both.  The  feeling  is  decidedh'  growing  that  such  duties 
should  be  taken  off,  and  even  the  total  abolition  of  the  tea  duty  is  advocated,  because 
China  is  one  of  ovu"  best  customers.  Duties  should  rather  be  put  upon  the  productions 
of  our  competitors,  of  which  a  striking  example  is  shown  in  the  great  injury  done  to 
the  Lancashire  trade  by  the  free  importation  of  beet  root  sugar.  This  has  seriously 
curtailed  the  demand  for  our  goods  from  the  sugar-cane  producing  countries,  such  as 
the  West  Indies,  Brazil,  Mauritius,  Java,  Manilla,  etc.,  where  the  proportion  of  colored 
and  printed  goods  taken  is  largely  in  excess  of  gray  goods;  whereas  the  exports  to 
India  and  China  consist  of  a  very  large  proportion  of  gray  goods,  and  consequently 
find  less  labor  and  profit  for  our  people.  The  government  of  this  country  must  have 
a  revenue  of  some  ^go,ooo,ooo  or  ^100,000,000  per  annum,  and  this  can  only  come  out 
of  the  labor,  profits  and  rents  of  the  people,  consequently,  any  fiscal  system  which  dimin- 
ishes the  incomes  of  the  people  must  certainly  tend  to  diminish  the  revenue.  The 
diminution  in  revenue  from  the  excise  is  steadily  going  on,  which  shows  that  the  con- 
dition of  the  working  classes  is  not  nearly  so  good  as  it  was  twelve  or  twenty  years 
ago,  and  this  is  owing  to  reduced  wages  and  short  time  working,  some  factories 
and  works  not  having  doue  more  than  three  or  four  days  a  week  during  the  whole  of 
last  year,  and  a  good  many  mills  being  totally  closed  for  a  part  of  the  year.  The 
diminution  in  commercial  salaries  in  this  city  is  very  marked,  being  generally  25  or 
30  per  cent,  and  in  some  cases  even  40  per  cent  less  than  twelve  years  ago.  The 
decrease  in  the  large  number  of  men  who  formerly  enjoyed  salaries  of  ^1000  a  year 
as  buyers,  salesmen,  cashiers,  or  managers  of  departments,  is  strikingly  illustrative  of 
the  decline  in  the  cotton  trade." 

The  foregoing  facts  are  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  principle  that  a 
policy  having  for  its  chief  end  "cheapness"  cannot  reditce  its  wage- 
earners  to  that  free  trade  basis  of  bare  subsistence,  without  dragging  every 
phase  of  social  life  and  branch  of  employment  down  toward  the  same 
level.  The  warfare  of  competition  under  free  trade  strikes  at  every 
household,  every  trade,  industry  and  profession;  it  spares  no  one,  and 
operates  not  only  as  a  blight  on  enterprise  and  a  check  on  industrial  prog- 
ress, but  in  its  leveling  process  dooms  every  one  to  share  in  its  miseries 
and  to  contribute  to  its  ultimate  end. 

James  Mawdsley,  representative  of  the  Amalgamated  Association  of 
Operatives  Cotton  Spinners,  of  the  Di.strict  of  Lancashire,  Yorkshire, 
Cheshire  and  Derbyshire,  was  examined  and  .said; 

Q.  Suppose  we  in  England  adopted  the  same  hours  as  they  have  in  Gennany  and 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


France,  and  the  same  wages,  do  you  think  we  should  make  our  goods  cheaper  than  we 
do  at  the  present  moment  ?  A.  I  think  that  is  a  simple  truism.  Q.  Then  to  that 
extent  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  foreigner  being  free  to  work  longer  hours,  and 
having  a  lower  rate  of  wages,  has  a  clear  advantage  from  these  circumstances  in  the 
price  of  the  article  he  turns  out  ?     A.  Yes,  that  is  clearly  so. 

I  have  objection  to  men  working  as  long  hours  as  they  like.  It  is  a  physical  and 
moral  objection,  and  not  an  economical  objection.' 

William  Schulze,  merchant  aud  manufacturer  at  Galashields,  having 
bu.siness  connections  with  the  whole  of  Europe,  the  United  States,  and 
South  America,  also  to  a  small  extent  with  India  and  Australia,  was 
examined  and  said: 

Trade  is  not  flourishing,  manufacturers  are  not  nearly  sufficiently  employed,  we 
can  get  no  profits;  there  is  a  considerable  falling  off  iu  demand.  It  is  due  in  my 
opinion,  partially  to  foreign  couutries  advancing  considerably  in  their  capacitj'  of  pro- 
ducing ,  and  also  it  is  due  to  the  high  tariifs  which  we  are  paying  for  sending  our 
goods  into  other  countries.  But  with  the  advancing  capacity  for  production  the  tariff 
has  not  been  gradually  reduced;  on  the  contrary,  I  know  of  no  case  where  tariffs  have 
at  all  been  reduced.  Whenever  there  has  been  a  change  it  has  gone  against  us.  I  am 
speaking  of  Germany,  Austria,  Russia,  Spain,  Italy  and  the  United  States.  I  think 
those  are  the  principal  countries.  In  other  countries  there  is  no  production  to  speak 
of,  and  consequently  we  are  not  under  the  same  diiSculties  with  regard  to  them.  Q. 
With  regard  to  the  increased  production  of  goods  in  other  countries,  which  have  been 
displacing  ours,  is  it  a  production  founded  upon  fair  and  equal  competition,  or  a  pro- 
duction artificially  nourished  by  their  tarifi's  ?  A.  It  is  artificially  nourished  by  their 
tariffs.  2  •» 

' '  Artificially  nourished, ' '  that  is  shielded  from  destruction  by  the 
laws  of  the  land.  A  foreign  rival  is  required  to  pay  a  certain  sum  at  the 
custom  house  for  the  privilege  of  invading  the  country,  and  attacking  the 
life  of  a  home  industry;  and  the  sum  to  be  paid,  called  a  duty,  is  fixed  at 
such  an  amount  that  the  undertaking  is  made  unprofitable.  If  this  is  an 
"artificial"  regulation,  then  the  laws  which  protect  a  man's  property 
against  the  outlaw  are  also  artificial.  If  British  industries  had  a  little  of 
the  same  kind  of  nourishment,  they  might  have  more  strength,  live  longer 
and  flourish. 

Why  should  not  a  nation  favor  its  own  citizens  against  strangers  in 
trade  as  well  as  in  everything  else?     The  witness  further  said: 

They  could  not  compete  with  us  on  equal  grounds;  there  may  be  exceptions,  but 
as  a  rule  not.  The  cause  of  the  increased  production  in  these  foreign  couutries  is  the 
maintenance  by  them  of  heavy  tariffs  against  our  goods,  under  which  their  own  indus- 
tries are  artificially  fostered  and  ours  discouraged.  The  longer  a  protective  tariff  is 
maintained  against  us  by  any  country,  the  stronger  its  manufacturers  become  to  com- 
pete with  us  on  equal  terms.  Germany  and  France,  and  perhaps  one  or  two  other 
Continental  countries,  are  competing  more  with  us  in  neutral  markets  than  they  were 
some  few  years  ago.  They  are  competing  with  us  successfull}'.  That  is  on  equal 
terms,  of  course,  in  neutral  markets,  because  of  their  growing  capacity.  O.  It  has 
been,  as  you  are  aware,  asserted  by  a  certain  school  of  political  economists,  that  a 
nation  maintaining  a  protective  system  cannot  compete  on  equal  terms  in  neutral 
1  Second  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  172.  2  Id.,  p.  190. 
16 


England's 
protected  . 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


markets  with  a  nation  maintaining  the  system  of  free  imports.  Does  j-our  experience 
confirm  or  contradict  that  doctrine?  A.  It  confirms  it  to  a  certain  extent  only.  I 
mentioned  before  that  the  capacities  of  production  of  foreign  nations  are  increasing  and 
they  are  more  able  to  export  their  goods  also.  Q.  In  spite  of  their  protective  system  ? 
A.  Yes,  in  spite  of  their  protective  system.  Q.  Which  we  have  been  assured  would 
forever  prevent  their  doing  so;  but  in  spite  of  that  assertion  I  understand  you  to  say 
that  they  are  competing  with  us  now  more  successfully  every  year  in  neutral  mar- 
kets?    A.  Quite  so;  that  is  the  case. 

It  is  a  common  assertion  of  free  traders  that  protected  industries  are 
weak  and  sickly.  By  preserving  their  home  market  under  protection 
Continental  nations,  with  their  cheap  labor,  have  a  decided  advantage 
over  England.  Their  manufacturers  have  a  large  market  secured  to  them 
and  manufacture  a  surphis  for  foreign  trade.  Their  surplus  meets  English 
goods  in  neutral  markets.  If  they  paid  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in 
England  it  would  so  enhance  the  cost  of  their  goods  that  they  would  fail 
in  the  struggle.  The  manufacturers  who  pay  the  lowest  wages,  other 
things  being  equal,  will  control  neutral  markets.  This  is  the  reason  why 
Germany  and  France,  although  protectionist  countries,  must  pay  low  wages, 
so  long  as  they  depend  on  foreign  trade.  The  United  States  must  enter 
foreign  markets  on  the  same  terms.  The  witness  now  proceeds  to  confirm 
what  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that  the  Manchester  manufacturers 
sacrificed  the  agriculturists  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  the  artisans 
with  cheaper  food,  that  wages  might  be  kept  down.  This  was  the  economic 
effect  of  such  policy  as  understood  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade.  Mr. 
Gladstone  recognized  the  insuflSciency  of  the  principle  of  cheap  food  to 
elevate  the  masses  of  the  people  when  he  said: 

' '  One  of  the  fallacies  which  was  employed  on  the  hustings  was  the 
cry  of  cheap  bread.  That  cry  of  cheap  bread,  considered  by  itself,  means 
nothing  that  is  necessary  or  beneficial  to  the  laboring  classes."  ' 

The  witness  further  said: 

Q.  It  has  been  maintained,  as  you  are  aware,  that  England  has  an  advantage  in 
cheapness  of  production  over  those  countries,  bj'  reason  of  her  system  of  free  imports 
of  food?  A.  Yes.  O.  Germany,  you  are  quite  aware,  has  now  taxed  food  for  some 
six  years;  has  there  been  any  effect  apparent  during  that  six  years  in  the  weakening  of 
the  competitive  force  of  the  German  manufacturers  in  consequence?  A.  I  think  not. 
German  competition  is  certainly  stronger  against  us  than  it  was  six  years  ago.  Q.  Is 
it  not  the  fact  that  the  only  way  in  which  free  imports  of  food  enable  the  maiuifac- 
turers  of  one  nation  to  beat  the  manufacturers  of  another  is  by  the  population  living 
more  cheaply,  and  working  for  lower  wages?  A.  Of  course  that  seems  to  be  natural; 
it  could  not  operate  in  any  other  way  than  that.  If  cheap  food  did  cheapen  produc- 
tion of  manufactories,  the  only  way  in  which  it  could  operate  in  that  way  would  be  by 
reducing  the  price  of  labor.  (By  Professor  Bonamy  Price.)  Q.  Under  protection, 
may  wages  rise  ?  A.  Of  course  they  have  more  chance  to  rise.  Q.  Do  low  prices 
generally  make  low  wages?     A.  As  a  rule. 

'  Hansard,  Vol.  61,  p.  273. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


Those  who  have  read  the  writings  of  Professor  Price  will  appreciate 
how  he  must  have  felt  when  he  received  the  above  answers.  The  experi- 
ence of  business  men  overthrow  the  fine-spun  theories  of  the  free  trade 
professors  in  every  instance. 

Joshua  Rawlinson,  secretary  of  the  North  and  Northeast  Lancashire 
Cotton  Spinners'  Association,  which  is  a  federation  of  the  Employers' 
Association  of  Blackburn,  Preston  and  Burnley;  also  director  of  three 
limited  liability  companies  having  cotton  mills  in  Burnley,  was  examined, 
and  said: 

Q.  What  do  you  consider  to  be  the  present  condition  of  the  cotton  trade;  do  you 
call  it  prosperous  or  the  reverse?  A.  It  has  been  very  much  depressed;  in  fact,  the 
present  depression  may  be  said  to  have  commenced  in  the  year  of  1S76.  The  year  of 
1S77  was  worse  than  1S76,  and  1S78  was  worse  than  either  of  them.  The  effect  of  the 
depression  in  those  years  was  to  reduce  the  price  of  labor.  In  June  of  that  year,  the 
wages  in  both  the  spinning  and  weaving  departments  were  reduced  10  per  cent,  after 
a  strike  of  nine  weeks'  duration,  which  extended  from  Preston  to  Burnley,  Blackburn, 
Accriugton  and  intervening  districts.  In  April,  1S79,  a  further  reduction  of  5  per  cent 
was  made.  In  December,  1S83,  a  reduction  of  5  per  cent  was  again  made  in  the 
weaving  department,  and  this  caused  another  strike  in  Blackburn,  Darwen  and  Padi- 
hain,  which  lasted  nine  weeks.  The  weavers  in  the  Preston  and  Burnley  districts 
accepted  the  reduction.  At  the  present  time  the  wages  paid  in  North  and  Northeast 
Lancashire  are,  therefore,  10  per  cent  below  the  level  of  187S.  In  the  course  of  that 
reduction  there  had  been  two  prolonged  strikes.  In  the  town  of  Burnley  there  are 
1400  looms  and  53,400  spindles  standing  idle  at  the  present  time;  that  is  relating  to 
machinery  solely,  and  there  are  empty  mills  and  sheds  in  the  town  capable  of  holding 
5869  looms  and  126,000  spindles,  which  only  need  equipping  with  machinery  to  be  set 
to  work.  In  the  Blackburn  district,  I  am  informed,  that  there  are  6700  looms  and 
186,000  spindles  standing  idle,  and  that  mills  have  been  burnt  down,  or  pulled  dowu, 
and  not  rebuilt  withiu  the  last  few  years,  capable  of  holding  330,000  spindles. 
Q.  What  effect  does  this  have  upon  the  rents  obtained  upon  mills  and  sheds  ?  A.  The 
rents  obtainable  for  mills  and  sheds  have  fallen  very  greatly  during  the  last  two  years. 
Spinning  mills  in  Blackburn  cannot  be  let  at  any  price,  and  I  am  informed  that  a  fire- 
proof spinning  mill,  containing  iS.ooo  spindles,  will  be  let  rent  free,  if  the  tenant 
vrM  pay  rates  and  taxes,  and  keep  the  building  and  machinery  in  repair.' 

Q.  What  do  you  consider  to  be  the  cause  of  this  depression  ?  A.  They  are  very 
numerous.  In  fact,  there  are  a  combination  of  causes.  The  fall  in  prices  has  greatly 
injured  the  cotton  trade,  because  it  is  so  largely  dependent  upon  the  export  trade  for  its 
prosperity.  Of  cotton  productions  four-fifths  are  sent  abroad,  and  hence,  the  smaller 
return  made  for  foreign  products  has  had  a  great  effect  in  lessening  the  buying  power 
of  our  customers  abroad,  because  they  have  got  such  a  small  return  for  the  raw  mate- 
rials they  have  sent  us,  that  their  buying  power  is  very  much  lessened.  Q.  Do  you 
attribute  the  depression,  to  any  extent,  to  the  increase  in  the  cotton  machinery  abroad  ? 
A.  Yes,  I  think  that  a  very  great  cause  of  depression  is  the  extension  of  cotton 
machinery  in  Europe,  America  and  India.  Many  of  our  former  customers  now  manu- 
facture their  own  goods.  The  higher  wages  and  the  shorter  hours  of  this  country  do 
undoubtedly  tend  to  give  our  competitors  a  great  advantage  over  us.  I  think  that  the 
shortened  hours  and  higher  wages  have  made  our  labor  more  productive  in  proportion 
to  the  time  spent  upon  it ;  at  the  same  time,  it  (the  productive  capacity)  is  increasing 
in  other  countries  by  the  improvements  of  their  machinery;  hence,  were  they 
'  Second  Rep.,  Part  I-,  p.  203 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


to  pay  lower  wages  and  work  longer  hours,  they  are  bound  to  have  some  advautage 
over  us. 

Within  forty  years  from  the  time  when  the  cotton  manufacturers  of 
Manchester  asked  for  the  repeal  of  all  protective  regulations,  and  invited 
foreign  rivals  to  a  contest  under  free  trade,  we  find  many  of  the  most 
experienced  and  able  among  them  pleading  for  a  return  to  protection. 
Conditions  have  changed.  In  1846  they  were  practically  without  rivals. 
By  1886,  under  the  fostering  care  of  protective  tariffs,  the  best  markets  in 
the  world  were  being  supplied  by  domestic  producers,  with  facilities  for 
production  so  extensive  that  a  portion  of  the  surplus  was  selling  in  Eng- 
land. It  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  order  to  meet  such  aggressions,  to 
hold  their  home  market,  and  to  prevent  a  much  larger  loss  than  they  had 
already  suffered,  from  taking  place  in  neutral  markets,  the  wages  of  Eng- 
lish cotton  spinners  and  weavers  have  not  only  been  reduced,  but  the 
profits  of  employers  have  sunk  so  low  that  the  business  has  ceased  to  yield 
a  fair  return  or  to  invite  the  investment  of  capital.  The  palmy  days  of 
the  cotton  industries  are  over.  The  great  profits  which  were  made  through 
the  monopoly  of  markets  have  disappeared.  They  have  been  subjected  at 
last  to  that  "struggle  for  existence,"  that  "survival  of  the  fittest"  to 
which  agriculture,  the  silk  and  many  other  industries  were  subjected 
immediately  after  the  introduction  of  free  trade.  When  the  situation 
is  fully  understood  it  is  an  easj'  matter  to  explain  the  vigorous  action 
of  their  .sympathetic  free  trade  friends  in  the  United  States.  Frcu 
trade  in  the  United  States  would  surrender  the  valuable  market  of 
70,000,000  of  people  in  America  to  foreigners  that  their  trade  may  ht; 
restored  and  their  declining  fortunes  revived.  During  the  last  t\vent>- 
years  the  English  cotton  manufacturers  have  looked  forward  to  an  event 
of  this  character  as  the  great  sotu-ce  of  relief  from  their  condition. 

The  official  statistics  of  the  British  Government  disclo.se  a  condition  of 
imports  and  exports  which  is  certainly  not  encouraging.  The  imports  of 
fully  manufactured  cotton  goods  for  home  consumption  in  i860  were  $3,098,- 
035.  By  1875  they  had  increased  to  $5,400,290,  and  in  1890,  to  $9,838,495. 
While  this  amount  seems  siuall  when  compared  with  the  large  production  in 
their  own  mills,  yet  it  deprives  British  labor  and  capital  of  a  market  to  that 
extent,  wlrich  might  be  held  under  a  moderate  protective  duty.  If  these 
goods  which  are  being  purchased  were  being  made  in  England,  it  would  cer- 
tainly set  in  motion  the  idle  machinery  which  the  witnesses  have  described 
and  give  employment  to  many  laborers  who  are  working  on  short  time. 
While  imports  have  been  increasing  the  exports  of  their  domestic  produc- 
tions have  declined  froiu  $307,558,500  in  1872-3-4,  to  $297,641,943, 
or  3.3  per  cent  in  1890- 1-2.  The  exports  of  domestic  yarn  during  the 
same  period  declined  from  $78,517,151  to  $55,353,343-  Notwith- 
standing this  decline  the  United  Kingdom  is  .still  the  greatest  cotton  manu- 
facturing  country    on    the   globe.     Yet    the    indications  are  that   it  has 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


already  reached  its  highest  point.  Its  progress  has  not  only  been  arrested, 
but  it  is  tending  toward  decay.  The  growth  of  the  cotton  industry 
throughout  the  world  shows  that  there  is  no  prospect  of  British  manufac- 
turers regaining  their  lost  markets  in  Europe  and  the  United  States.  The 
annual  consumption  of  raw  cotton  in  Great  Britain,  the  Continent  of 
Europe,  and  the  United  States  respectively,  from  1841  to  1889,  as  shown 
by  Thomas  EUerson's  annual  circular,  was  as  follows: 

Average  Per  Annum  in  Millions  of  Pounds. 


1841-45 

1851-55 

.856-60 

1861-65 

1866-70 

1871-75 

.87^80 

1881-85 

188^89 

Great  Britain 

Continent  of  Europe,     .   .    . 

521-3 

267.2 
152.5 

75°- 1 

947.3 
627.4 

35S.8 

9335 

628.6 

973-8 
381.9 
2009.1 

"Ts 

I44I.I 

1508.7 
:sio.i 
904.4 

941.0 

,482.9 

36:5.7 

4on  2 

Great  Britain  (increased)  from  1841-45  to  1886-89,  189.  i  percent. 
Continent  of  Europe    "        "  "  "         "         465.1        " 

United  States  "        "  "         "         "         493  " 

Increase  From  1856  to  1889. 

Great  Britain,      59.3  per  cent. 

Continent  of  Europe,      140- 7 

United  States,      152.  i 

The  following  very  complete  analysis  of  the  cotton  trade  of  Great 
Britain  is  taken  from  the  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  vi,  pages  189-90,  Jan- 
uary 23,  1891. 

THE   COTTON    TRADE. 

A  Statistical  Analysis  of  the  Board  op  Trade  Returns. 

By  Sisbon  S.  Rigg. 

I   take   the   following    figures  for  the  last    twenty  years,    1870-S9,     from     my 

compiled  table  of  each  year,  taken  separately  and  balanced  to  the  yard  and  pound: 

The  total  quantities  of  cotton  manufactured  goods  exported  from  the  United 
Kingdom  to  the  foreign  countries  in  millions  of  yards. 

To  Europe  and  the  United  States. 

1S85-89 


1870-74. 

Germany,      342 

France,      451 

Portugal 344 

Spain 72 

Austria 74 

United  States 581   ' 

Holland, 202 

Belgium 53 

Italy,    356 

Greece 151 

2626 


S85-89. 

Inc. 

Dec. 

194 

148 

177 

274 

333 

II 

53 

19 

31 

43 

224 

357 

214 

12 

297 

244 

407 

51 

165 

14 

RETUMN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


To  Africa  and  Turkey. 


1870-74. 
Turkey, 1295 


Egypt 

Morocco, 

West  Coast  of  Africa,    . 


Philippine  Isles, 

China 

Japan 


1271 
73 
105 

2744 
To  AsiJ 


1837 


585-S9. 

1529 
675 
171 


462 
304 
1916 
305 


To    AMERICA. 

Foreign  West  Indies,     ....    39S  447 

Mexico,                 165  1 78 

United  States  of  Colombia,     .    479  257 

Venezuela 69  149 

Peru, 154  13S 

Chili 306  306 

Brazil ....        S30  1039 

Uruguay, 96  176 

Argentine  Republic 245  450 

2742  3140 


205 
636 


To  Countries  Not  Fully  Detailed. 


1S85-89. 

6 

56 

59 


Dec. 
596 


238 


Russia,   .    .           5 

Norway  and  Sweden,  .    .    .(d)  55 

Denmark, (a)  11 

Bulgaria, 

Roumania, 75 

Tunis (a)  4 

Algeria 

East  Africa (a)  6 

Madagascar, (d) 

Persia,      (b)  3 

Dutch  Possessions  in  India, 

Central  America,  ....      (d)  27 

Ecuador, 

Pacific  Isles 2 

Other  countries  not  detailed,  .  153 

Decimals  of  the  above  Millions: 

361  S72  511 

10,310  ii,68i  1,371 

(a)  signifies  one  year,  (b)  two  years,  (c)  three  years  and  (d)  four  years. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


To  British  Possessions. 


1870-74. 

Gibraltar 148 

Malta, 95 

West  Africa, 135 

South  Africa, 99 

Mauritius 54 

Bomba}-  and  Sciiide,      ,    .    .    .1118 

Madras,         195 

Bengal  and  Burmah,      ....  3359 

Straits  Settlements, 462 

Cejlon J65 

Hong  Kong 536 

Australasia,      200 

North  America, 215 

West  India  Islands, 201 

Aden,   Honduras,  not  detailed 
fully,  decimals  of  above,    .      20 

7,002 

Total, 17,312 


lOI 

6 

I  S3 

48 

I4S 

50 

26 

360S 

2490 

66(j 

465 

5362 

2003 

638 

176 

72 

665 

129 

532 

332 

159 

12,487 


6,856 


The  total  quantities  of  cotton  yarn  exported  from  the  United  Kingdom  to  foreign 
countries  in  millions  of  pounds: 


Russia, 

Germany 194 

Holland, 214 

Italy,      

Austria,      

Sweden  and  Norway,    .... 

Denmark 

Belgium, 

France 

596 

Turkey 86 

Roumania, 18 

Egypt, 35 

China 4 

Japan, 46 

Not  detailed 18 


70-74. 

.885-89. 

„e 

Dec. 

16 

II 

5 

194 

172 

22 

214 

201 

13 

93 

42 

51 

16 

13 

3 

14 

22 

8 

14 

23 

9 

9 

70 

61 

26 

63 

3 

7 

101 

15 

37 

19 

20 

24 

20 

106 

60 

52 

34 

I4S 


A  jialysis 
of  cnfioit 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


To  British  Possessions. 

1870-74.  1SS5-89. 

British  India, 132  336 

Straits  Settlements 11  14 

Hong  Koug 49  44 

Not  detailed, 32  8 

224  302 

Total, 1027  1259 


Value  of  Our  Total  Cotton  Manufactures  Exported  in  Millions. 


Yards ^277 

Pounds 76 

Thread,  hosiery,  lace,  etc.,      ...  21 


ISS5-89. 

Quantities 

1S85-89  at 

1871^74  Vak 

^254 

.^386 

58 

93 

37 

^374 
Average  Price  Per  Yard. 


Plain,  

Printed  and  dyed, 


Diflference, 


3.41a'. 
4-770'. 

i.36rf. 


2.26^. 
0.911/. 


The  value  of  cloth  exported  1885-89  over  1870-74  shows  a  decrease  of  51  per  cent. 

Statistics  relative  to  our  home  trade  in  cotton  goods  are  very  meagre,  but  one-sixth 
or  one-fifth  part  of  our  export  trade  may  be  somewhere  about  the  amount.  I  should 
think  the  increased  trade  between  1S70-89  will  be  fully  equal  to,  pr  more  than,  our 
increase  of  population,  thirty -one  to  thirty-eight  millions,  22>^  per  cent. 

The  number  of  cotton  factories,  etc.,  in  the  United  Kingdom  are  given  thus: 


No.  of  Cotton 
Factories. 

^^fpTnXr'^ 

Looms. 

Persons  Employed. 

X' 

2,483 
2,635 

33,995,221 
40,120,451 

440,676 
550,955 

450,087 
504,069 

Our  total  consumption  of  raw  cotton,  in  all  kinds,  in  millions  of  pounds: 

1870-74.                 .875-79-                 1SS0-S4.                .SS5-89. 
Net  import  of  raw  cotton,  6268  lbs.         6174  lbs.         7379  lbs.         7352  lbs. 

The  distribution  of  American  cotton,  from  the  Cotton  Brokers'  Annual  Statement,. 
September  23,  1890: 

United 
Kingdom. 

France. 

North 
Europe. 

United 
States. 

Countries. 

1870-75-Bales,     . 
1885-90-     "         . 

Increase  per  cent. 

1,897 
2,835 

49-4 

261 

436 

67.0 

393 
1,004 

155-4 

92-5 

113 

344 

204.4 

'Las 

t  year  given  in 

88 

9  abstract. 

FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


From  Messrs.  Ellison's  Annual  Review  of  the  Cotton  Trade,  I  take  consumption 
of  every  kind  of  raw  cotton,  yearly  average  in  millions: 


United  Kingdom. 

Continent. 

United  States. 

Total. 

1871-75    •    •  lbs. 
1881-84   .    .  lbs. 

Increase  per  cent, 

1,229 
1,489 

21.2 

S56 
1.320 

54-2 

68.7 

2,609 
3,690 

41.4 

The  Board  of  Trade  returns  give: 

Cotton  consumed  in  India  in  million  pounds:  1880,  84. 8  lbs.;  1890,  392.0  lbs.; 
increased  per  cent,  362.2. 

Export  quantities  of  English  and  Indian  yarn  compared  in  million  pounds: 

Export  of  English  yarn  to  all  countries  and  British  possessions:  1880,  215  lbs.; 
1S90,  252  lbs.;  increase  per  cent,  17.2. 

Export  of  Indian  yarn  to  Hong  Kong,  China,  and  Japan:  1880,  25  lbs.;  1888,  113 
lbs.;  increase  per  cent,  352.0. 

The  following  will  show  that  Germany,  as  a  competitor  in  textile  goods,  is  not 
far  behind,  and  that  her  progress  is  vastly  more  rapid: 

German  Textile  Exports. 

Quantities.  Value. 

1887.  iSSS.  1SS8. 

Cotton  yams,  100  kilogrammes 91,500  64,067  marks.  17,442,000 

Cotton  cloth,   100  kilogrammes, 108,000  289,242      "  186,348,000 

Woolen  yam,  100  kilogrammes 41,400  68,813      "  42,847,000 

Woolen  cloth,  100  kilogrammes, 169,300  233,064      "  189,748,000 

Silk  cloth,  100  kilogrammes, 16,500  66,271      "  183,436,000 

Total, •  .    .     619,821,000 

Mark  equal  to  i.f. ,       ....   ^30,991,050 

British  manufacture  of  woolen  and  silk  together  exported  to  foreign  countries  and 
our  possessions,  amounted  in  1877,  to  ^27,500,000,  in  18S9,  to  ^24,500,000,  while  our 
imports  of  the  same  amounted  to  ^24,500,000,  while  Germany  imports  ^5,000,000,  of 
which  /;'4, 500,000  is  for  yarn.  Thus  we  have  Germany  importing  ^'500,000  to  our 
import  of  ^21,500,000  of  manufacture  in  its  finished  state.  Which  mills,  under  these 
circumstances,  theirs  or  ours,  are  likely  to  pay  best,  and  in  which  will  most  employ- 
ment be  found  for  the  work  people  ? 

The  above  cotton  analysis  shows  that  in  spite  of  the  increased  population  and 
increased  individual  requirements  throughout  the  world,  the  effect  of  the  foreign 
tariffs  of  Europe  and  of  the  United  States  upon  our  cotton  trade  with  them  has  caused 
it  steadily  to  go  downwards,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for  our  trade  to  the  East,  the  cotton 
trade  of  this  country  would  have  most  seriously  declined.  It  shows  the  misjudgment 
and  complete  failure  of  Cobden  and  his  dreams,  that  instead  of  free  trade  or  exchange 
trade  with  these  countries  we  to-day  buy  from  the  Continent  and  United  States  some 
sixty  million  pounds  of  competing  manufactures  (twenty-nine  million  pounds  textile) 
and  eighty  million  pounds  of  competing  produce,  while  on  the  other  hand  they  dole 
out  to  us  the  very  smallest  pittance  of  their  trade,  and  none  if  they  could  possibly  help 
it.  Could  a  more  suicidal  policy  on  our  part  have  ever  been  invented  ?  If  it  were  a 
fact  that  our  free  "  competing  "  imports  enabled  us  to  produce  cheaper,  how  is  it,  in 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


spite  of  our  trade  in  the  East,  that  our  proportion  of  the  consumption  of  the  world's 
cotton  crops  is  so  rapidly  declining?  I  am  told  on  the  very  best  authority  that  while 
one-third  of  the  mill  machinery  we  make  in  this  country  was  formerly  for  abroad, 
to-day  it  is  two-thirds  for  abroad. 

Regarding  our  textile  trade  with  the  United  States  and  the  Continent,  with  their 
high  tariffs,  longer  hours,  and  the  Continental  cheap  labor,  no  permanent  good  and 
full  justice  will  be  done  until  tariff  is  met  by  tariff  of  exactly  the  same  amount.  In 
the  meantime  the  best  we  can  do  is  to  "  commercialh-  "  federate  our  Empire.  India, 
with  its  population  of  two  hundred  and  sixty-three  millions,  takes  an  import  from  us 
of  thirty-one  million  pounds,  while  Australia,  with  three  and  three-quarter  millions, 
takes  twenty-three  million  pounds.  I  feel  sure  it  could  not  enhance  prices  except  by 
its  prosperous  results  ;  but  all  efforts  in  this  direction,  unless  accompanied  with  the 
connnercial  aspect,  are  comparatively  useless  to  our  textiles.  See  the  above  cotton 
analysis.  Australasia  has  increased  her  takings  from  two  hundred  million  yards  to  five 
hundred  and  thirty-two  million  yards ;  while  North  America  has  declined  from  two 
hundred  and  fifteen  to  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  millions  (five  years'  period). 

Sir  Lyon  Playfair,  in  defence  of  our  present  system,  has  lately  said  to 
his  league  constituents  respecting  the  McKinley  Tariff  Bill : 

If  they  be  right  in  principle  and  successful  in  practice,  the  whole  commercial 
policy  of  this  country  is  founded  on  a  gigantic  error,  and  must  lead  to  our  ruin  as  an 
industrial  nation. 

I  mention  that  he  was  never  nearer  the  truth  than  when  he  said  this,  especially 
when  we  find  that  statistics,  analyzed,  from  whatever  point  you  take  them,  show  our 
present  policy  to  be  so  completely  disastrous  to  our  country.  Has  this  country,  or  to 
be  more  correct,  has  the  Cobden  Club  all  the  wisdom,  and  the  United  States,  and  the 
rest  of  the  whole  world  put  together  none  ? 

The  depression  in  the  cotton  trade  of  Great  Britain,  as  disclosed  by 
the  Royal  Commission  in  1885  and  1886,  has  continued  until  the  present 
time.  On  August  30,  1889,  the  Fair  Trade  Journal  published  the  follow- 
ing stubborn  facts  with  regard  to  the  industry. 

Stoppage  of  Machinery  at  Blackburn — 2500  Operatives  Idle. 

The  serious  depression  in  the  cotton  trade  was  made  further  manifest  yesterday, 
when  another  series  of  temporary  stoppage  of  spindles  and  looms,  even  more  numerous 
than  those  recorded  a  week  ago,  took  place  at  Blackburn.  Messrs.  Thomas  Dugdalc 
Brothers'  two  mills,  one  at  Witton  and  the  other  at  Livesey,  and  the  Primrose  and 
Waterfall  Mills,  run  by  Messrs.  John  Fish,  Limited,  all  suspended  operations  for  a  time, 
in  consequence  of  the  depression.  The  first-named  firm,  Messrs.  Dugdale  Brothers,  have 
altogether  86,000  spindles  and  1600  looms  idle,  whilst  Mes.srs.  John  Fish,  Limited,  have 
74,968  spindles  and  1760  looms  stopped,  making  a  total  at  these  four  mills  alone  of 
150,968  spindles  and  3360  looms.  In  addition  to  these,  many  other  firms  have  looms 
and  spindles  stopped,  though  to  a  much  smaller  degree,  and  yesterday  our  Blackburn 
correspondent  was  officially  informed  that  in  Blackburn  alone  there  are,  at  the  present 
time,  no  fewer  than  8000  looms  standing  inactive,  and  that  in  the  weaving  branch  of 
the  cotton  trade,  without  reckoning  the  spinning,  there  is  the  large  number  of  2500 
weavers  out  of  employment.  As  regards  the  spinning  branch  of  the  trade,  the  num- 
ber of  spindles  stopped  in  the  town  is  computed  at  not  far  short  of  200,000.' 


■  Trade  Jo 


Vol.  IV,  p.  609. 


FEEE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


Again  on  September  4,  1891,  the  Fair  Trade  Journal,  after  an 
account  of  the  losses  sustained  by  those  joint  stock  companies,  which 
made  reports  upon  their  condition,  said  : 

From  which  statement  may  be  summarized  that  the  nine  companies  show  a  loss 
of  /i4,395  during  the  past  three  months,  as  against  a  profit  of  ^'iSo2  ;  or  a  net  loss  of 
/1 2,593  on  the  whole.  Or,  again,  taking  the  first  six  companies— concerning  which 
alone  the  whole  of  the  particulars  are  given— we  have  the  result  that  the  working  of 
250,496  twist  spindles  and  324,582  weft  spindles,  together  with  the  plant  capital 
of  ^429, 876  eventuated  in  the  net  loss,  during  a  brief  three  months,  of  ^9328.  So 
much  for  the  "companies."  Private  firms  are,  of  course,  under  no  obligation  to 
publish  their  returns  ;  but  we  are  assured  by  those  who  know,  that  the  results  would 
be  much  the  same.  —  IVaich  Cotton  ." 

The  foregoing  most  reliable  information  with  reference  to  the  leading 
industrj^  of  the  United  Kingdom,  certainly  makes  a  poor  .showing  for  free 
trade.  While  cotton  manufacturing  is  flourishing  and  increasing  in  every 
locality  where  it  is  given  the  stimulus  of  a  protective  tariff,  it  is  declining 
under  free  trade  in  England.  This  industry  was  stronger  and  more  fitted 
to  sun'ive  the  competition  of  free  trade  than  any  other.  The  evidences  of 
decline  which  we  find  existing  during  the  past  twenty  years,  are  there- 
fore more  significant.  Apart  from  the  question  of  the  effect  which  free 
imports  are  having  on  this  industry,  the  tendency  throughout  the  world 
of  natious  to  build  up  home  industries,  give  employment  to  their  own 
labor  and  capital  and  provide  themselves  with  clothing,  makes  it  more 
necessary  than  ever  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  preserve 
their  home  market.  The  delusion  of  free  traders  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  can  at  once  capture  the  markets  of  the  world,  which  are  a 
subject  of  warfare  among  the  strong  and  powerful  contestants  of  Europe, 
is  fully  exposed  by  the  facts  which  have  been  stated.  If  the  cotton  manu- 
facturers of  England,  with  their  long  experience,  economy  of  production, 
advantages  in  ftiel,  means  of  transportation,  efficient  machinery  and  cheap 
labor,  can  be  driven  to  the  wall  and  suffer  as  they  are  suffering,  from  the 
excessive  competition  which  is  being  carried  on,  how  then  can  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  who  pay  high  wages,  hope  to  survive  such  a  contest 
even  at  home,  to  .say  nothing  of  winning  a  share  of  the  markets  of  the 
world.  It  is  a  fact  well  known  to  English  cotton  manufacturers,  that  as 
long  as  the  United  States  pays  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in  England,  it 
will  be  absolutely  powerless  to  maintain  itself  under  low  ad  valorem  duties, 
much  less  under  free  trade.  Isaac  Watts,  chairman  of  the  Cotton  Manu- 
facturing As.sociation  of  Manchester,  states  in  his  article  on  cotton,  in  the 
' '  Encyclopedia  Britannica, "  "  That  if  America  be  thought  to  possess  any 
superiority  over  England  in  the  great  facility  and  cheapness  with  which 
the  raw  material  may  be  provided,  such  advantage  is  more  than  counter- 
balanced in  other  respects  and  especially  as  regards  labor. ' ' 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Woolen  Industry. 

"  The  staple  manufactures  of  Bradford  and  the  district  have  of  late  years  fallen 
off.  Some  of  the  old  staple  manufacturers  have  lost  their  heart  and  died  off." — Evi- 
dence of  Henry  Mitchell. 

The  woolen  industry  of  Great  Britain  was  the  first  to  receive  protec- 
tion when  Edward  III.  invited  to  England  John  Kemp  and  his  weavers 
and  dyers  from  Holland.  From  that  time  on,  gradually,  but  steadily, 
the  industry  grew  and  thrived  under  the  patronage  of  the  govern- 
ment, until  it  held  the  first  place  among  English  manufactures.  By  the 
extensive  use  of  cotton  fabrics,  following  the  invention  of  machinery, 
it  gradually  dropped  to  the  second  place  ;  but  its  progress  was  steady  and 
continuous  until  after  the  adoption  of  free  trade.  All  through  the 
protective  period  it  was  vigorous  and  flottrishing.  It  is  a  significant 
fact  that  since  it  has  been  subjected  to  aggressive  foreign  competition 
under  the  free  trade  policy,  the  most  alarming  complaints  have  filled 
the  country  as  to  its  fate  in  the  future.  Notwithstanding  the  superior 
advantages  in  the  way  of  machinery,  abundant  capital,  long  experi- 
ence and  low  wages,  the  official  returns  of  the  Board  of  Trade  disclose 
some  very  significant  external  facts  which  have  a  direct  bearing  upon 
its  present  condition.  In  1846,  when  protective  duties  were  repealed  and 
it  was  exposed  to  competing  imports,  the  supremacy  was  such  that  the 
total  imports  of  woolen  manufactures  into  England  for  home  consumption 
were  only  $1,327,250.  By  i860  they  had  reached  $5,910,415.  It  was 
between  this  time  and  1875  that  imports  began  to  be  felt  in  the  home 
market.  They  had  reached  $20,440,675  in  1875,  and  $38,980,755  in 
1890,  an  increase  of  90.7  per  cent  in  fifteen  years.  It  is  a  most  astonish- 
ing fact  that  the  English  people  are  paying  the  Continent  this  vast  sum 
of  money  to  support  foreign  labor,  when,  were  it  not  for  free  trade,  every 
dollar  paid  for  these  goods  might  be  retained  in  England  to  furnish 
employment  for  a  large  number  of  those  who  now  depend  upon  public 
charity.  It  is  surprising  that  while  imports  have  been  so  increasing, 
the  exports  of  domestic  productions  have  declined  from  $134,223,504 
1872-3-4,  to  $94,619,550  in  1890-1-2,  or  29.5  per  cent.  The  English 
people  consume  at  home  woolen  goods  made  in  foreign  countries  of  nearly 
one-half  the  value  of  those  which  they  export. 

The  imports  into  England  of  fully  manufactured  goods  for  home 
consumption  increased  from  $5,910,415  in  i860,  to  $38,980,755  in  1890,  an 
increase  of  559.5  per  cent,  while  during  the  same  time  the  exports  of 
woolen  goods  made  in  English  factories  increa.sed  from  $60,749,569  in 
1860-1-2,  to  $94,619,550  in  1890-1-2,  or  only  55.7  per  cent.  Another 
quarter  of  a  centurj'  of  this  kind  of  progress  under  free  trade  will  place 
the  woolen  industry  in  the  same  position  as  the  silk  industry  and  agri- 
cultural interests  of  the  country. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


While  the  imports  of  woolen  and  worsted  j'am  for  use  in  home  fac- 
tories increased  from  $2,351,400  in  1S60,  to  $8,577,470  in  1890,  or  264 
per  cent,  the  exports  of  these  domestics  yarns  declined  from  $28,436,985 
in  1872-3-4,  to  $20,094,812  in  1S90-1-2,  or  28  percent. 

The  increase  in  the  number  of  woolen,  worsted  and  shoddy  factories, 
during  a  period  of  sixteen  years,  and  of  the  number  of  persons  employed 
in  these  industries  during  the  same  time,  was  as  follows:  Factories  in 
1874,  2617;  in  1S90,  2671,  an  increase  of  onty  54.  The  persons 
employed  in  1874  were  280,133;  "^  1890,  301,556,  an  increase  of  21,423.' 

The  evidence  given  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Depression  of 
Trade  and  Industrj-  discloses  the  condition  under  which  this  industry  is 
being  carried  on.  The  following  is  taken  from  the  evidence  of  an 
experienced  manufacturer  of  Bradford: 

Henry  Mitchell,  for  twenty  years  member  of  the  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce of  Bradford,  said: 

There  has  generally  been  a  falling  off  in  trade  with  foreign  countries.  The 
greatest  falling  off  has  been  in  the  case  of  Germany.  Germany  formerly  took  from 
us  at  least  ^3, 000, 000  a  year  in  stuff  goods,  and  at  the  present  time  it  is  not 
/'joo.ooo.  In  stuff  goods  it  is  not  more  than  one-tenth  of  what  it  was  at  the  period 
to  which  I  have  referred  (between  1870  and  1875).  Although  there  has  been  a  very 
large  decline  in  exports  of  manufactured  goods  to  Germany,  there  has  been  a  very 
large  increase  in  e.xports  of  yarn  and  semi-raw  materials  to  that  country.  Germany 
has  been  very  largely  increasing  their  own  production.  They  now  supply  their  own 
consumption  almost  exclusively,  and  they  are  also  becoming  rather  severe  com- 
petitors with  us  in  some  of  the  neutral  markets;  especially  in  the  United  States  of 
America  and  in  South  America,  and  to  some  extent  in  the  British  Colonies. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  between  1870  and  1875,  Germany  had 
returned  to  free  trade,  and  imports  largely  increased,  to  the  great  detri- 
ment of  their  home  industries  and  that  in  1879  the  policy  of  protection 
was  restored,  with  the  result  stated  by  the  witness. 

The  United  States  are  very  large  customers  of  ours.  Going  back  to  thirteen 
years  ago  there  has  been  a  decline  in  the  export  of  worsted  stuffs  proper  from  over 
^3,091,000  to  ;ii'i,ooo,ooo;  that  is  to  say,  we  are  only  sending  at  the  present  time 
about  one-third  of  the  amount  we  sent  twelve  or  thirteen  years  ago.  The  value  of 
it  has  been  considerably  reduced,  but  the  quantity,  I  should  think,  would  be  about 
one-half ;  the  value  about  one-third. 

During  the  last  twenty  years  trade  has  varied.  We  had  a  very  high  state  of 
prosperity  in  our  district,  during  the  American  war,  of  course,  for  exceptional 
causes,  which  continued  until  1865.  Then  during  the  Franco-German  war,  we  had 
also  a  very  high  state  of  prosperity,  and  our  manufacturers,  as  a  rule,  were  making 
large  profits.  I  should  say  that  business  continued  to  be  fairly  profitable  until  1874 
or  1875,  since  then  there  has  been  a  very  heav}'  loss  in  some  branches  of  industry, 
and  the  value  of  all  kinds  of  property  has  very  seriously  declined,  I  should  say,  at 
least  one-third  since  1875.  There  has  been  an  enonuous  increase  in  those  industries 
in  several  countries.  In  France  there  has  certainly  been  a  very  large  increase,  in 
Germany  probably  a  still  larger  increase,  and  in  the  United  States  of  America  an 
enormous  increase,  during  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years. 

>The  Financial  Reform  Almanac  for  1894,  p.  118. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Q.  Have  you  any  theory  to  explain  that,  or  any  facts  by  which  you  can  explain 
it?  A.  With  regard  to  the  United  States  of  America  of  course,  the  principal  cause 
is  the  high  tariff. 

The  rate  of  wages  (in  England),  I  should  say,  is  about  lo  per  cent,  lower  than 
it  was  in  1875.  As  compared  with  ten  years  before  that,  they  are  not  much  changed. 
In  the  amount  of  capital  invested,  the  number  of  mills  and  establishments  for 
carrying  on  business  in  the  staple  industries,  there  has  been  considerable  falling  off. 
The  rate  of  profits  on  all  our  staple  goods  has  been  very  small  indeed,  and  in  many 
instances,  very  serious  losses  have  been  sustained. ' 

The  foregoing  admission  that  wages  in  this  indtistrj'  were  reduced 
about  10  per  cent,  between  1875  and  1885  to  the  level  of  1864,  becomes 
more  significant  from  the  fact,  that  the  wages  which  prevailed  even  in 
1875  were  almost  to  a  starvation  point,  and  more  than  50  per  cent 
below  the  wages  paid  in  the  United  States.  The  wages  of  persons 
employed  in  this  industry,  as  disclosed  by  a  report  made  bj'  Mr.  Robert 
Giffen,  Statistician  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  to  the  Commission  on  Labor  in 
1894,  was  as  follows: 

WOOLEN   MILLS. 

Annual.  Per  Week. 

Men, $292.00  $5-63 

Women, 167.00  3.22 

Children 100.50  1.93 

WORSTED   MILLS. 

Men $294.00  $5-67 

Women, 151.00  2.89 

Children, 80.00  1.57 

The  above  figures  given  by  Mr.  Giffen  were  disputed  by  the  president 
of  the  Bradford  Labor  Union,  who  stated  before  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Labor,  that  the  average  wages  of  this  district  (Bradford)  for  weavers  was 
95.,  or  $2. 16  per  week.  The  accuracy  of  this  statement  was  questioned 
and  a  committee  of  well-known  citizens  appointed  to  ascertain  the  real 
facts.  After  a  painstaking  and  expensive  investigation,  they  reported 
that  for  1891  the  average  week's  earnings  were  135.  40'.  (about  $3.08  per 
week).^ 

The  foregoing  facts  show  the  utter  unreliability  of  estimates  and 
statistics  which  emanate  from  such  free  traders  as  Mr.  Gifien.  It  is 
common  for  free  traders  to  exaggerate  the  wages  paid  in  England.  The 
element  of  partial  employment  is  usually  left  entirely  out  of  their  calcula- 
tions, which  make  the  actual  earnings  appear  much  larger  than  they 
really  are,  but  in  any  event,  even  if  it  should  be  conceded  that  Mr.  Giffeu's 
estimate  is  correct,  it  presents  a  wage  rate  which  is  a  disgrace  to  any 
civilized  country,  and  condemns  that  fiscal  policy  under  which  there  is  no 

1  Royal  Commission,  Report  II.,  Pari  I.,  p.  124.  -'  Robert  P.  Porter,  in  the  New  York  Sumlav 
Press,  October  28,  1894. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


possibility  of  an  increase,  but  which  as  competition  becomes  more  intense, 
will  necessitate  still  further  reductions. 

We  find  the  following  statement  made  by  Mr.  Porter,  giving  some 
comparison  of  the  magnitude  of  this  industry,  and  showing  its  ability  to 
ruin  the  woolen  industry  of  the  United  States  under  free  competition  or 
low  tariff  duties; 

Here  is  an  interesting  comparison  between  the  six  States  which  employ  the 
greatest  number  of  hands  in  woolen  manufacturing  and  the  six  West  Riding  woolen, 
worsted  and  shoddy  centres  which  I  have  visited  this  week.  This  should  give  some 
idea  of  the  concentration  of  this  industry  in  England: 


English  Towns. 

Total  number  employed 
in  woolen  and  worsted 
industry,  1891. 

Bradford,   .    .    .  ' 45.2i6 

Leeds 16,767 

Huddersfield 15.659 

Halifax 14,2:6 

Dewsbury  (approximately) 10,000 

Batley,  "  ....    8,000 


American  States. 

Total  number  employed 
in  woolen  and  worsted 
industry,  1891. 

Pennsylvania, 55.354 

Massachusetts, 43.03S 

New  York, 37.992 

Rhode  Island 19.3^5 

Connecticut i3.o47 

New  Hampshire, 9,400 


What  We  Would  Compete  With. 

Here  we  find  in  six  centres,  all  within  a  radius  of  about  ten  miles,  nearly  110,000 
persons  engaged  in  these  industries,  a  number  exceeding  the  total  number  employed 
in  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts  combined,  or  of  New  York,  Rhode  Island,  Con- 
necticut and  New  Jersey.  And  yet  we  look  upon  the  woolen  industry  of  these  States 
as  of  considerable  importance  to  the  States  and  the  nation  at  large.  Destroy  or  cripple 
them  and  the  result  would  indeed  be  unhappy.  Do  the  free  traders  of  Massachusetts, 
for  example,  know  that  the  number  employed  in  the  woolen  and  worsted  industries 
of  this  city  of  Bradford  is  greater  than  those  similarly  employed  in  the  whole  State  of 
Massachusetts?  It  is  this  concentration  of  industry  in  one  spot  that  gives  the  English 
a  tremendous  advantage  over  the  United  States.     Here  we  see  it  again: 

1S91:  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire,  total  number  employed,  wool  and  worsted, 
218,202.  1S90:  The  United  States,  scattered  in  forty-two  States  and  Territories,  total 
number  employed,  wool  and  worsted,  219,132. 

Facing  the  real  facts  thus,  how  is  it  possible  for  the  American  manufacturer  to 
begin  to  compete  with  the  British  producer  ? 

Mr.  Porter  further  says: 

In  a  published  speech  the  chairman  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Hudders- 
field this  week  declared  that  the  Honorable  William  L.  Wilson  had  never  heard  of 
Huddersfield  until  he  had  read  the  speech  of  Sir  Albert  Rollit  before  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  of  that  important  centre  of  cloth  manufacture.  If  this  be  true,  it  only 
illustrates  the  ignorance  of  the  most  intelligent  of  our  tariff  reformers  in  relation  of 
the  character  and  extent  of  the  competition  to  which  they  have  exposed  American 
labor  and  industry.  Huddersfield  is  by  no  means  the  most  important  of  the  English 
cloth  towns,  and  yet  it  employs  250  more  people  in  that  industry  than  the  State  of 
Connecticut,  and  within  about  350  of  the  number  employed  in  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island,  the  fourth  largest  woolen  manufacturing  State  of  the  Union.  Should  we  c 
pare  the  town  of  Huddersfield,  which  Mr.  Wilson  had  never  heard  of,  to  his  own  State 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


of  West  Virginia,  in  the  manufacture  of  woolen,  it  would  appear  as  follows:  Hudders- 
field,  15,659  hands  ;  West  Virginia,  307  hands. 

The  effect  of  wages  in  controlling  cost  of  production  and  thus 
strengthening  the  ability  of  the  manufacturer  to  compete  with  rivals,  is 
disclosed  in  the  following  extract  from  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Henry  Mitchell: 

There  is  no  doubt  that  one  reason  why  the  French  beat  us  in  those  higher  classes 
of  goods  is  that  labor  forms  a  very  important  element  in  the  cost  of  those  goods.  As 
much  more  work  and  care  are  required  in  every  process  of  the  manufacture  of  them, 
no  doubt  they  have  some  advantage  in  cheaper  labor  and  longer  hours  of  work.  The 
French  have  so  far  not  been  able  to  compete  with  us  in  cheaper  kinds  of  goods  for 
women's  wear,  nor  in  men's  wool  goods.  This  is  shown  very  clearly  in  the  goods 
which  they  export  to  this  country  ;  whilst  we  are  taking  about  ^7,000,000  worth  of 
wool  manufacture,  mainly  from  France,  they  are  all  high  class  goods  intended  for 
women's  wear,  with  the  exception  of  about  ^300,000  in  men's  wear;  so  that  we  have, 
practically,  the  monopoly  of  the  men's  wear  goods,  and  also  of  the  lower  priced  goods 
for  women's  wear. 

The  staple  manufactures  of  Bradford  and  the  districts  have  of  late  years  fallen 
off  considerably.  Some  of  the  old  staple  manufacturers  have  lost  their  heart  and  died 
off.  There  was  not  sufficient  demand  to  keep  the  machinery  a  going.  In  some  class 
of  fancy  goods,  especially,  the  Germans  beat  us  both  in  style  and  cost.  I  do  not  think 
they  beat  us  in  ordinary  staple  goods.  It  is  because  the  labor  is  considerably  cheaper 
in  Germany  and  their  hours  of  labor  are  seventj'-two  per  week,  against  ours  of  fifty- 
six  and  a  quarter,  that  may  be  one  reason. 

Q.  Would  the  same  remark  apply  to  the  United  States?  A.  No,  labor  is  much 
higher  in  the  United  States.  Q.  Do  they  beat  us  in  any  article  in  cost?  A.  None 
whatever,  and  they  are  never  likely  to  be  serious  competitors  with  us. 

The  opinion  of  this  experienced  manufacturer  that  the  United  States  is 
never  likelj'  "  to  be  a  serious  competitor"  with  English  manufacturers,  so 
long  as  the  high  wage  rate  prevails,  is  a  confirmation  of  the  contention  of 
protectionists  in  the  United  States.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  we  shall  never 
be  compelled  to  reduce  the  wages  of  our  men  to  $3.08  a  week  in  order  to 
fight  for  foreign  markets,  and  to  defend  ourselves  against  an  inundation 
of  goods  from  the  Bradford  district.  Yet,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  this 
would  be  necessary  ttnder  the  system  of  free  imports  in  order  that 
American  factories  might  exist. 

The  following  extract  from  the  testimony  of  the  same  witness, 
especially  upon  the  effect  of  the  reduction  of  duties  on  woolen  goods  by 
the  United  States  Congress  in  1883,  shows  how  favorable  a  slight  modifi- 
cation in  this  tariff  became  to  the  Engli.sh  manufacturer. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  again  of  the  power  of  competition  of  France  and  Germany; 
has  that,  in  your  opinion,  been  diminished  by  their  tariflf  system  during  the  last  eight 
or  ten  years?  A.  The  competition  in  neutral  markets  has  considerably  increased  dur- 
ing the  last  few  years.  Q.  The  way  in  which  the  United  States  has  affected  the  Brad- 
ford manufactures,  has  been  by  excluding  our  productions  from  their  own  immense 
market  ?  A.  That  is  so.  Q.  Is  that  exclusion,  in  your  opinion,  an  increa.sing  exclusion  ? 
A.  The  duties  have  been  slightly  reduced  during  the  last  few  years,  and  the  result  of 
that  reduction  has  been  a  considerable  increase  in  our  business  with  America.     It  is 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENQLISB  INDUSTRIES. 


not  a  large  reduction,  it  is  about  lo  or  15  per  cent,  and  they  have  also  reduced  the 
duty  on  yarns,  which  has  led  to  a  very  considerable  increase  on  imported  yarns.' 

The  reduction  in  duties  in  the  United  States  referred  to  by  the  witness 
was  by  the  revision  of  the  tariff  which  took  place  in  1883,  which  resulted 
in  increased  importations,  especially  of  woolen  goods,  into  the  United 
States,  and  seriously  crippled  this  branch  of  industry.  The  importations 
continued  to  increase  until  they  were  checked  by  the  higher  duties  im- 
posed by  the  McKinley  bill  in  1890.  They  were  $35,776,559  i"  1885,  as 
appears  from  the  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States,  for  1894, 
$52,564,942  in  1889,  and  at  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year,  June  30,  1890, 
they  reached  $56,582,432.  The  McKinley  bill  took  effecf  October  i, 
1890.  By  June  30,  1891 ,  the  imports  of  these  articles  dropped  to  $41 ,060,- 
080,  and  to  $35,565,879  by  June  30,  1892,  in  the  short  space  of  two  years 
saving  to  the  laborers  and  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  $21 ,016,553, 
which  would  otherwise  have  gone  into  the  pockets  of  foreigners.  Between 
the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  and  October  6,  1892,  twenty-six  woolen 
mills  were  constructed  in  the  United  States,  which  exceeded  one-half 
the  number  which  had  been  built  in  England  during  the  sixteen  years 
prior  to  1890.  The  results  of  this  measure  will  be  treated  more  full)'  in 
a  later  chapter. 

Mr.   Henry  Mitchell  further  said: 

In  spinning  merino  wool  the  French  are,  to  a  considerable  extent,  using  English- 
made  inventions.  I  believe  that  England  is  superior  to  any  country  in  our  textile 
machinery.  Q.  As  there  seems  to  be  no  difficulty  in  spinning  this  material  in  Eng- 
land, into  which  country  it  is  imported  and  re-exported  into  France,  we  have  not  yet 
reached  the  root  of  the  matter,  namely,  the  reason  why  the  English,  who  are  in  pos- 
session of  the  best  machinery  and  the  best  basis  of  trade  as  regards  the  raw  material, 
have  not  hitlierto  been  equally  successful  with  the  French  in  the  spinning  of  this 
Colonial  wool  ?  A.  I  can  only  give  the  reason  which  I  have  already  stated;  in  the  first 
place,  that  in  France  they  have  some  advantage  in  their  cheap  labor,  which  forms  a 
ver\'  large  element  in  the  cost  of  these  goods,  and  they  also  have  an  advantage  in  the 
longer  hours,  and  the  long  experience  which  they  have  had  in  the  manufacture  of  these 
goods,  and  also  in  the  very  careful  way  in  which  they  manipulate  them  and  dye  them 
and  finish  them. 

O.  Can  you  conceive  it  possible,  judging  from  what  you  have  already  mentioned 
with  regard  to  the  Bradford  spinning  trade,  that  any  sane  man  would  invest  ^100,000 
in  a  spinning  mill  to  compete  with  a  neighbor  nearer  the  London  market  than  him- 
self, who  was  allowed  to  work  seventy-two  hours  a  week,  whilst  he  was  restricted 
to  fifty-six  and  one-half  hours?  A.  Under  present  conditions,  I  should  say  that  he 
certainly  would  not  do  it. 

Linen  Industry. 
The  linen  industry  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  also  engaged  in  a  life-and- 
death  struggle.  In  i860- 1-2  their  exports  of  linen  manufactures  amounted 
to  $22,985,099.  The  sales  to  foreign  countries  increased  and  reached 
$37,746,907  in  1872-3-4.  By  this  time  the  indu.stry  had  seen  its  best  days. 
Exports  began  to  decline  and  were  reduced  to  $26,513,777  in  1890-1-2,  a 

■  Royal  Commission.  Report  II,  Part  I,  p.  130. 
17 


■Irs/titi-'trrf 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

decline  of  29.8  per  cent  from  1872-3-4.  Up  to  1875  the  domestic  manu- 
factures held  such  absolute  supremacy  at  home  that  imports  of  these 
fabrics  amounted  only  to  $837,260.  Imports  continued  to  increase  until 
1890,  when  they  amounted  to  $2,162,780,  an  increase  of  158  per  cent  in 
fifteen  years.  Fifteen  or  twenty  years  more  of  the  same  ratio  of  decline 
in  exports  and  increase  of  imports  will  bring  the  linen  industry  of  Eng- 
land to  a  deplorable  condition.  Free  trade  has,  then,  resulted  in  arresting 
further  expansion  of  this  industry  and  sent  it  on  the  downward  road  of 
cheapness.  The  economic  conditions  under  which  this  industry  is  strug- 
gling for  existence,  and  proving  its  right  to  live,  are  set  forth  in  the 
following  evidence  of  two  most  competent  manufacturers  given  before  the 
commission  referred  to.  Mr.  R.  H.  Reade,  manager  and  director  of  the 
York  Street  Flax  Spinning  Company,  Belfast,  said: 

The  linen  trade  and  industry  of  Belfast  is  in  an  unsatisfactorj^  condition  as 
regards  the  profits  of  capital.  I  will  show  3'ou  what  the  value  of  our  linen  trade  has 
been.  France  and  Germany  have  interfered  verj'  much  with  our  yarns  and  weaving 
trade.  Of  the  Continental  exports  against  Colonial  exports,  and  what  the  trade  has 
been  in  neutral  markets,  taking  the  United  States  as  an  example.  Our  Colonial 
exports  of  linen  in  1870  were  ^■405,000  ;  in  1884  they  were  ^663,000,  or  an  increase  of  65 
per  cent.  Our  other  foreign  exports  were,  in  1S70,  ^6,842,000,  and  in  1884  the}'  were 
^4,516,000,  or  a  decrease  of  33  per  cent.  Tliese  are  values  I  am  speaking  of  altogether; 
so,  of  course,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  quantity  of  our  Colonial  exports  has  increased  in  a 
higher  ratio,  while  the  volume  in  our  other  foreign  exports  has  diminished  in  a  lower 
ratio  than  that  percentage;  probably  20  per  cent  is  to  be  allowed  for  that.  Our 
Continental  imports  of  both  yarns  and  linens  in  1870  were  only  ^£"189,000  ;  they,  how- 
ever, rose  in  1871  to  ^446,000,  and  in  18S4  the  value  was  ;^537,ooo.  Although  the 
values  have  diminished,  that  would  show  an  increase  upon  the  values  of  1S70  of  20O. 
percent.  Our  total  exports  to  the  Continent,  of  yarns  and  linens  in  1870,  were 
^1,691,000 — that  is,  to  the  Continental  countries  which  we  consider  competing  coun- 
tries, such  as  Belgium,  France  and  Germany;  Russia  is  also  to  some  extent  a  com- 
peting country.  Our  total  exports  in  1S70  to  those  four  countries  were  ^1,691,000, 
and  in  18S4  they  were  ^1,194,000,  or  a  decrease  of  30  per  cent.  Now,  deahng  with 
neutral  markets,  I  am  taking  the  United  States  of  America  for  example;  in  the  year 
1870  the  imports  into  the  United  States  of  America  of  British  linens,  including  the 
Irish,  were  ^"3, 100,000.  In  1884,  they  were  ^2,699,000,  a  falling  off  of  12'/^  per  cent 
in  value.  Now  in  1S70  the  imports  into  the  United  States  from  Germany,  Belgium, 
Austria,  France  and  Russia  amounted  to  ;^i2l,ooo,  and  in  1884  it  was  ^6So,ooo,  show- 
ing an  increase  of  five  and  a  half  times.  It  is  accounted  for  to  some  small  extent  by 
the  superiority  of  their  designs.  There  are  certain  fabrics  into  which  colors  can  be 
introduced,  in  which  I  think  the  Continental  people  have  surpassed  us,  but  the  extent 
of  that  particular  branch  of  the  linen  trade  is  not  large.  I  attribute  their  success  as 
competitors  with  us  mainly  to  their  being  able  to  produce  more  cheaply  than  we  can. 
They  have  the  raw  material  at  their  doors  in  Belgium,  Germany  and  Austria.  They 
grow  as  nmch  flax  there  as  tliey  use,  or  nearly  as  much  flax  as  they  use;  tliey  have 
got  cheaper  labor  and  they  have  longer  hours.  They  can  produce  the  lower  cla.ss  of 
goods  more  cheaply  than  we  can,  but  in  the  finer  goods  we  are  more  skilled,  and  we 
have  some  special  advantages  in  the  way  of  bleaching  which  they  do  not  possess, 
which  give  us  the  advantage  of  bleached  linen,  shirtings,  table  Hneus  and  handker- 
chiefs;   if  they  are  wanted  to  be  pure  white.' 

•  Royal  Commissiou,  Report  II,  I'^irl  I.,  p.  260. 


FREE  TEADE  AND  EXGLISR  IXDUSTRIES. 


Mr.  Richardson,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  Belfast, 
and  also  member  of  the  House  of  Richardson  Bros.,  in  Belfast,  said  : 

In  1S71  there  were  S66,ocx3  spindles  in  Ireland;  in  1S85  there  were  the  same 
number;  in  1871  in  England  there  were  269,000;  iu  1S85  there  were  117,000  in  Eng- 
land; in  1S71  there  were  317,000  in  Scotland;  and  in  1885  there  were  220,000  in  Scot- 
land. In  1S61  there  were  344,000  spindles  in  England,  279,000  in  Scotland,  and 
593,000  in  Ireland. 

In  1S60  the  number  of  spindles  in  France  was  500,000,  and  in  1878,  which  is  the 
last  year  I  have  been  able  to  get,  they  had  the  same  number,  namely,  500,000.  As 
regards  Germany,  there  were  138,000  in  1862,  and  318,000  in  1877,  the  last  year  that 
we  have.  And  it  is  very  likely  they  have  doubled  since  that  time.  Now  Austria  and 
Hungary  in  1862  had  150,000  spindles,  and  in  1SS2  they  had  488,000.  That  shows  that 
in  those  countries  there  was  a  very  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of  spindles, 
and  we  presume  they  are  supplying  their  own  wants.  They  are  competing  with  us  in 
neutral  markets. 

The  linen  manufacturer  openly  disposes  of  his  goods  to  a  merchant,  who  also 
buys  from  foreign  countries,  and  so  practically  controls  the  price  paid  for  the  goods. 
He  would  buy  in  the  cheapest  market.  American  buyers  of  linen  now  regularly  visit 
Belgium,  Germany  and  Austria,  as  well  as  Scotland  and  Ireland,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  their  purchases. 

We  export  yarns  to  Germany,  Spain,  Italy,  Holland,  Belgium  and  France.  To 
Germany,  in  the  five  years  from  1865  to  1870,  we  exported  to  the  value  of  ^3,672,000. 
In  the  next  five  years  we  exported  to  the  value  of  ^3,063,000,  showing  a  decrease  of 
17  per  cent.  In  the  five  years  from  1875  to  18S0,  we  exported  /"i, 278,000,  showing  a 
decrease  of  59  per  cent.  In  the  five  years  from  1S80  to  1885,  the  amount  was  ^1,110,- 
000,  showing  a  decrease  of  13  per  cent.  To  Spain  we  exported  in  the  five  years  from 
1865  to  1870,  ^3,243,000.  In  the  five  years  from  1S70  to  1875,  /'3, 037, 000,  showing  a 
decrease  of  6  per  cent.  In  the  five  years  from  1S75  to  1880,  /"i, 956,000,  showing  a 
decrease  of  36  per  cent.  In  the  five  years  from  1880  to  1885,  jf  1,350,000,  showing  a 
decrease  of  31  per  cent.  To  Italy  we  exported  in  the  five  years  from  1865  to  1870, 
/952,ooo.  In  the  five  years  from  1870  to  1875,  ^466,000,  showing  a  decrease  of  51 
per  cent.  In  the  five  years  from  1S75  to  1880,  ^267,000,  showing  a  decrease  of  47 
per  cent.  In  the  five  years  from  1S80  to  1S85,  ^157,000,  showing  a  decrease  of  41 
per  cent.  To  Holland  we  exported  in  the  five  years  from  1865  to  1870,  ^1,110,000. 
In  the  five  years  from  1870  to  1875,  ;^i,237,ooo,  showing  an  increase  of  11  percent. 
In  the  five  years  from  1875  to  1880,  /"749,ooo,  showing  a  decrease  of  40  per  cent,  and 
in  the  five  years  from  1880  to  18S5,  ^567,000,  showing  a  decrease  of  25  per  cent.  To 
Belgium  we  exported  in  the  five  years  from  1865  to  1870  ^704,000.  In  the  five 
years  from  1870  to  1875,  jf6S8,ooo,  showing  a  decrease  of  4  per  cent.  In  the  five  }'ears 
from  J  875  to  1880,  ^'604,000,  showing  a  decrease  of  12  per  cent.  In  the  five  years 
from  1880  to  1S85,  .^756,000,  showing  an  increase  of  25  per  cent.  To  France  we 
exported  in  the  five  years  from  1865  to  1870,  /■!, 200,000.  In  the  five  years  from  1870 
to  18751  .^566,000,  showing  a  decrease  of  53  per  cent.  In  the  five  j-ears  from  1S75  to 
1880,  jf  797,000,  showing  an  increase  of  41  per  cent,  and  iu  the  five  years  from  iSSo 
to  1885,  ;^866,ooo,  showing  an  increase  of  9  per  cent.' 

In  connection  with  the  foregoing  evidence  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  of  Belfast,  states  that  "  the  present 
rate  of  wages  is  slightly  below  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years." 
From  another  linen  manufacturer  comes  a  similar  report.     The  Chamber 

•  Royal  Commission,  Report  II,  Part  I.,  p.  260. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


of  Commerce  of  Dundee,  stated  in  its  answers  to  questions  submitted  b}' 
the  Royal  Connnission  that,  "the  rate  of  wages  is  at  present  lower  than  it 
has  been  for  the  past  ten  or  twelve  years,  and  also  slighth-  lower  than  the 
average  of  the  past  twenty  years.  This  is  general.  It  applies  to  both 
skilled  and  unskilled  labor. ' '  The  Linen  Merchants'  Association  of 
Belfast,  also  .stated  in  their  report  to  the  Royal  Commission  that  wages 
are  slightly  below  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years.  It  is  per- 
fecth-  apparent  that  it  was  only  by  a  reduction  of  wages  to  the  level 
of  1864  that  English  and  Irish  manufacturers  have  been  able  to  main- 
tain themselves  in  the  home  market  and  to  prevent  being  to  a  greater 
extent  driven  out  of  the  markets  of  the  world.  A  reduction  of  wages  is 
the  inevitable  and  necessary  result  of  ruinous  competition.  The  effort  to 
make  cheap  goods,  the  effort  to  hold  markets  to  which  the  English  manu- 
facturers have  been  subjected  during  the  last  twenty  years,  has  destroyed 
profits  and  brought  about  a  condition  from  which  it  will  be  impossible  for 
the  English  manufacturers  to  extricate  themselves,  so  long  as  their  home 
market  is  thrown  open  as  a  prize  to  be  contested  for  by  rivals. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  consideration  that  while  this  industr>'  is  expand- 
ing and  improving  in  every  countrj'  where  it  is  given  the  security  of  a 
protective  tariff,  that  it  is  declining  under  free  ■  trade  in  England.  The 
following  extracts  from  eminent  authorities  are  worthy  of  careful  con- 
sideration by  the  linen  manufacturers  of  the  United  States,  and  those 
countries  which  are  practicing  the  policy  of  protection : 

Mulhall — "During  the  last  twenty  years  of  this  centurj- the  linen 
industry  of  Germany  has  increased  300  per  cent." 

Nineteenth  Centur}-,  June,  1883 — "  During  the  last  twenty  years  the 
linen  industry  of  Great  Britain  has  decreased  18  per  cent." 

British  Statistical  Abstract,  1S82 — "  During  the  last  ten  years  the 
exports  of  linen  yarn  from  England  have  decreased  steadily  everj^  >'ear, 
until  they  are  less  than  half  what  they  were  a  decade  ago." 

Nineteenth  Century- — "The  shares  of  the  leading  flax  mills  in  Ger- 
many are  20  and  22  per  cent  above  par.  The  shares  of  the  ten  principal 
flax  mills  in  Belfast  are  58  per  cent  below  par."  ' 

Jute  Industry. 
Up  to  recent  years  British  and  Scotch  manufacturers  held  a  monopoly 
of  the  jute  trade.  The  building  of  the  mills  in  India,  Germany,  Austria 
and  Italy,  has  brought  into  the  market  of  the  world,  such  strong  rivals 
that  the  trade  has  been  completely  revolutionized.  The  following  evidence 
of  jute  manufacturers  di.scloses  a  condition  which  ought  to  satisfy  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  that  their  own  home  market,  as  long  as  it  can  be 
preserved  by  protective  tariffs,  is  more  desirable  than  an\-  .share  of  foreign 
trade,  which  they  might  obtain  by  accepting  the  invitation  of  free  traders, 

*  Fair  Trade  Jowrnal,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  65. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDliSTEIES. 


to  adopt  the  policy  of  free  imports.  It  is  perfectly  apparent  that  a  removal 
of  duties,  or  even  a  reduction  to  a  low  ad  valorem  rate  would  result  in  the 
closing  of  every  jute  mill  in  the  United  States  and  an  absolute  surrender  of 
the  United  States  market  to  aliens. 

Mr.  Julius  Weinbnrg,  of  the  Dundee  Chamber  of  Commerce,  jute 
manufacturer,  said; 

The  jute  trade  has  been  in  an  unsatisfactory  condition  for  three  or  four  years.  I 
attribute  that  condition  to  more  mills  being  erected,  both  in  India  and  on  the  Con- 
tinent of  Europe,  in  addition  to  those  already  existing  in  Dundee.  The  production  is 
larger  than  there  is  a  demand  for.  Formerly  jute  was  manufactured  into  what  is 
called  gunny  cloth  in  India,  which  is  used  entirely  for  Indian  consumption.  It 
remained  in  that  way  until  the  opening  of  the  Suez  Canal  in  1869.  Before  that  time 
nobody  in  India  thought  that  jute  goods  could  be  sent  elsewhere,  because  the>-  would 
have  to  go  around  the  Cape.  In  the  year  1S73  there  were  four  mills  existing  in  India, 
altogether,  and  they  sold  their  productions  at  home.  Now  there  are  twent\-  mills  in 
India,  having  an  aggregate  of  Sooo  looms,  and  150,000  spindles.  Those  mills  not  only 
produce  what  is  wanted  in  India,  but  they  have  entirely  taken  away  some  of  the  mo.st 
important  markets  we  formerly  had  in  Dundee,  such  as  .\ustralia,  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope  for  wool  packs,  and  also  San  Francisco  for  grain  bags.  They  have  not  only 
done  that,  but  they  have  also  sent  large  quantities  of  goods  to  neutral  markets,  even  to 
the  west  coast  of  South  America,  Valparaiso,  for  instance,  and  they  have  also  of  late 
years,  sent  large  quantities  to  .\merica,  which  hitherto  was  the  most  important  market 
we  had  in  Dundee.  In  fact,  the  United  States  took  about  50  per  cent  of  all  that  was 
produced  in  Dundee. 

Wages  are  a  great  deal  cheaper  in  India  than  they  are  in  Dundee;  in  fact  a  spinner 
in  Calcutta  makes  less  than  half  what  a  spinner  does  here.  He  earns  3.V.  ^d.  (93  cents) 
a  week  of  fifty-four  hours,  whereas  in  Dundee  we  pay  from  8i.  to  los.  (|2.oo  to  I2.50) 
a  week  of  fifty-six  hours.     That  is  one  reason  of  the  bad  state  of  Dundee  trade. 

Ninety-three  cents  a  week  in  Calcutta  and  from  two  dollars  to  two 
dollars  and  fifty  cents  a  week  in  Dundee!  This  is  the  wage  rate  with 
which  free  trade  would  compel  American  labor  to  compete.  Do  American 
farmers  desire  to  ship  their  grain  in  bags  made  by  labor  receiving  such  pay: 
What  a  market  for  American  beef  and  pork  such  laborers  would  furnish ! 
The  family  of  one  American  artisan  affords  a  better  market  to  our  farmers 
than  a  whole  community  of  such  laborers  could  possibly  give.  Dundee 
laborers  could  scarcely  afford  to  eat  wheat  at  ten  cents  a  bushel.  Do  the 
American  farmers  desire  to  depend  on  such  customers  ? 

The  witness  continued  as  follows: 

In  Germany  they  have  about  twenty-three  mills  going  for  the  manufacture  of 
jute;  of  those  twenty-three  mills  fourteen  were  started  in  the  year  of  1SS3;  before 
that  time  there  were  only  about  ten,  the  first  of  them  being  started  in  1S60.  The  rates 
of  duty  we  have  already  furnished  to  the  commission.  In  some  countries,  such  as 
Austria,  the  duty  has  been  entirely  prohibitive;  we  used  to  do  a  very  large  trade— my 
own  firm  did  a  very  large  business  in  Austria,  and  it  can  do  nothing  at  all  now,  the 
trade  being  entirely  killed.  Very  nearly  is  the  same  with  Russia  and  some  other 
markets,  including  Italy,  all  owing  to  these  very  heavy  duties.' 
1  Royal  Commission.  Report  n..  Part  I.,  p.  218. 


•  RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

Mr.  Walker,  of  the  Dundee  Chamber  of  Commerce,  said: 
When  the  mills  first  started  at  Calcutta  and  began  to  compete  with  us  they  took 
the  heavy  trade  from  us,  and  we  cannot  compete  with  them.  We  simply  altered  our 
machinery  so  as  to  make  it  suitable  for  the  goods  we  were  introducing  into  Germany 
and  Russia.  Germany  was  the  best  market  w'e  had,  with  the  exception  of  America;  and 
after  going  on  in  that  way  for  some  time  those  foreign  countries  began,  first  of  all 
Italy,  and  then  Germany  and  Austria,  and  lastly  Russia,  to  put  on  very  lieavy  duties. 
Those  duties  did  not  tell  at  first  so  adversely,  because  they  had  to  put  up  their  works  to 
produce  the  goods.  My  firm  used  to  send  out  between  2,000,000  and  3,000,000  yards 
to  Germany  alone.  Russia  was  a  very  large  market  for  us,  but  in  the  last  two  years, 
since  they  have  built  these  mills  and  put  on  these  high  duties  which,  in  the  case  of 
Germany,  equal  27  per  cent,  and  in  the  case  of  Russia  112  percent,  my  firm  have 
almost  entirely  lost  this  trade.  In  1882  we  exported  47,000,000  yards  to  Germany;  m 
1S83  that  number  had  decreased  to  35,000,000,  and  in  1SS4  it  had  decreased  to  27,000,- 
000,  while  last  year  it  was  down  to  19,000,000.' 

Lace  Industry. 

The  import  of  lace  goods  into  the  United  Kingdom  for  home  con- 
sumption was  very  insignificant  in  1S60,  amounting  to  only  $277,805,  but 
by  1875  it  had  increased  to  $1,940,030.  Since  that  date  it  has  become 
quite  considerable,  amounting  to  $4,538,235  in  1890,  an  increase  since 
1875  of  134  per  cent.  While  on  the  other  hand,  the  exports  of  domestic 
productions  declined  from  $13,610,398  in  1881-2-3,  to  $10,000,368  in 
1890-1-2,  or  23  per  cent. 

The  causes  which  have  contributed  to  this  result  are  free  trade  in 
England  and  protection  in  other  countries.  Rival  industries  have  been 
built  up  under  protection  on  the  Continent,  which  have  grown  so  strong 
that  they  are  invading  English  markets  and  driving  English  manufacturers 
out  of  the  foreign  trade.  The  English  people  are  still  clinging  to  the 
policy  of  free  trade,  and  seeing  their  own  industry  undermined  and 
ruined. 

The  evidence  of  lace  manufacturers  given  before  the  Royal  Com- 
mission, contained  many  pointed  facts  upon  the  advantages  of  protection, 
showing  how  the  industry  has  been  built  up  in  Gennany,  employment 
given  to  German  artisans  and  a  business  created  which  could  not  have 
been  brought  into  existence,  excepting  under  the  influence  of  protective 
tariffs.  The  following  evidence  also  discloses  the  reasons  why  advocates 
of  free  trade  in  the  American  Congress  and  elsewhere,  attack  specific 
duties  with  such  bitterness.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  ad  valorem 
duties  are  favorable  to  that  system  of  under-valuation  and  fraud,  by 
which  the  advantage  given  by  protection  is  either  neutralized  or  destroyed. 

Mr.  Frederic  Carver,  from  the  Nottingham  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
said: 

From  1S73  to  the  beginning  of  1879,  we  suffered  in  like  manner  with  tlie  rest  of 
the  country,  in  fact  I  think  we  were  suifering  as  badly  as  any  place  could  be,  from 
'  Ro\aI  Commission,  Report  II,  Part  I.,  p.  211). 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


the  special  causes  at  work  to  prevent  our  producing,  first,  as  well  as  foreign  countries, 
and  secondly,  as  cheaply  as  foreign  countries.  The  increase  of  foreign  competition 
can  only  be  shown,  I  think,  or  be  fairly  estimated  by  the  continuous  growth  in  Ger- 
many and  elsewhere  of  machinery,  which  has  recently  taken  place.  Prior  to  1879,  I 
believe  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  there  was  scarcely  a  lace  machine  in  Germany 
whatever.  In  1879  a  duty  was  put  upon  Nottingham  manufactured  goods  of  sucl: 
character  that  it  at  once  induced  a  number  of  manufacturers  in  this  country,  seeing 
that  those  duties  were  almost  prohibitory,  manufacturers  who  had  difficulties  with 
their  workingmen  especially,  to  say,  "Well,  that  being  the  case,  this  great  duty  which 
they  now  put  upon  Nottingham  manufactured  goods  offers  a  great  advantage,  and 
therefore  I  will  take  at  least  some  portion,  if  not  the  whole,  of  my  plant  to  Germany;" 
and  the  consequence  is,  at  the  present  time  we  see  a  number  of  Nottingham  manufac- 
turers, who  actually  have  establishments  at  Plauen,  and  are  making  goods  which,  if  it 
were  not  for  the  protective  duties  that  were  created  for  them  bj-  Germany,  would  be 
made  in  Nottingham.  The  German  tariff  being  a  specific  tariff,  that  at  once  shut  out 
what  the  Nottingham  and  other  English  goods,  I  think,  are  especially  noted  for,  that 
is,  aiming  to  make  a  low  class,  cheap,  and  effective  article;  and  we  find,  unfortunately, 
that  wherever  these  specific  tariffs  exist,  they  always  have  the  same  result.  Unfor- 
tunately this  process  which  was  initiated  in  some  measure  by  Austria,  has  been 
followed  by  Germany,  and  it  has  been  followed  by  France,  and  always  with  the  same 
results,  our  trade  ceasing  and  our  manufacturing  decreasing. 

The  tariff  in  Germany  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  means  to  tempt 
machinery  from  this  side  to  locate  itself  in  Germany.  That  attempt  has  been  very 
successful;  and  at  the  present  time  we  find  that  Germany  can  not  only  make  all  the 
lace  curtains  they  want,  but  they  are  now  offering  certain  goods  in  this  market,  and  in 
neutral  markets,  in  competition  with  English  manufacturers.  I  think  the  evidence 
carries  conviction  with  it,  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  immense  advantage  that  they 
enjoy  in  the  price  of  labor,  they  would  never  be  able  to  compete  successfully  with  us 
in  this  market.  Russia  is  another  country  with  which  we  have  lost  a  considerable 
amount  of  business;  that  is  owing  to  the  same  operation.! 

1  Royal  Commission,  Repolt  II,  Part  I,  p.  234. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Free  Trade  and  English  Industries— (Cow^'/wKfa'). 

Metal  Industries. 
The  following  quotation  throws  light  on  the  condition  of  the  metal 
industries  in  Great  Britain: 

An  analysis  of  last  year's  exports  reveals  an  all  round  decline,  which  is  very 
unsatisfactory.  Between  the  years  iSSo  and  1885  the  total  exports  from  Germany 
increased  about  25  percent,  say  from  992,000 tons  to  1,232,505  tons,  which  found  its  way 
to  China,  India,  the  River  Platte,  United  States  and  Australia.  In  steel  and  iron  wire 
this  competition  has  been  felt  most  keenly,  for  whilst  the  total  exports  from  England 
in  1S83  were  62,784  tons,  those  from  Germany  amounted  to  203,627  tons,  and  in  18S2 
they  were  227,416  tons.  For  a  time  the  Germans  even  succeeded  in  be3ting  our 
English  makers  on  their  own  ground.  Btit  this  led  to  such  a  reduction  in  wire 
drawers'  zvagcs  as  rectified  this  anomaly;  but  for  exports  we  are  often  at  a  disadvan- 
tage when  competing  with  them.  The  increase  of  production  in  Germany  will  be 
manifest  from  the  following  figures: 


.879. 

18S0. 

.881. 

1882. 

Production  of  iron  wire,  .... 
Production  of  steel  wire,      .    .    . 

Tons. 

188,902 

4.034 

Tons. 
loiSoo 

Tons. 

1i:Ss 

Tons. 
254,018 
124,003 

The  great  extension  in  steel  wire  is,  no  doubt,  due  to  the  large  development  of 
' '  Basic  ' '  process. 

We  may  anticipate  that  this  competition  will  increase,  and  it  may  be  necessary 
for  the  English  manufacturer  most  seriously  to  consider  in  what  way  he  can  meet  and 
overcome  it.  There  is  no  shutting  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  we  are  somewhat  heavily 
handicapped  in  the  race.  Wages  are  lower,  even  after  making  all  fair  allowance  for 
the  greater  efficiency  of  British  labor,  but  the  system  of  tonnage  rates  and  payment 
by  the  piece,  in  contrast  to  day  labor  on  the  Continent,  accounts  for  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  difference. ' 

It  has  come  to  this,  that  the  British  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  are 
reducing  wages  in  order  to  prevent  their  home  trades  from  being  trans- 
ferred to  Continental  countries.  It  was  urged,  when  free  trade  was  adopted, 
that  under  its  ' '  .stimulating  breezes  "  the  natural  advantage  of  having  coal 
and  iron  lying  side  bj'  side  (fuel  and  raw  material),  aided  by  the  genius, 
ability,  wealth  and  mechanical  skill  of  the  English  people,  the  supremacy 
acquired  during  .so  many  years  of  protection  would  be  maintained.  A 
high  degree  of  skill  has  been  met  by  a  high  degree  of  skill.     Capital  has 

'  Extract  from  the  Aunual  Melal  Circular  of  Messrs.  W.  Fallows  &  Co.,  of  Liverpool,  dated 
Jan.  9,  1895. 

(264) 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


been  pitted  against  capital.     Coal  and  iron  are  found  lying  side  by  side  in 
many  countries. 

Sir  Lowtliian  Bell,  president  of  the  Iron  Trade  Association  of  Great 
Britain,  said  before  the  Royal  Commission:' 

In  Germany,  France,  Luxembourg,  new  fields  of  iron  ore  have  been  discovered, 
very  analogous  in  point  of  character  to  those  vphich  had  led  to  such  great  develop- 
ment of  the  iron  trade  in  Cleveland  (England)  and  elsewhere.  The  whole  constitutes 
an  immense  deposit  of  iron  stone,  which  begins  in  Luxembourg,  and,  passing  through 
Alsace,  enters  France,  running  through  about  150  miles  in  length  of  the  country  by  a 
lew  miles  in  width. 

Q.  Why  should  we  not  have  supplied  that  which  was  so  wanted  abroad  ?  A.  We 
could  not  supply  it  and  send  it  to  Germany,  because  in  that  country  they  were  able  to 
make  iron  and  deliver  it  at  a  given  point  in  Germany  more  cheaply  than  we  could  have 
made  it  here  and  deliver  it  at  the  same  point.  In  addition  to  the  freight  and  other 
charges  of  transports,  there  are  heavy  import  duties  to  pay  on  entering  the  German 
Empire.  The  same  observations  made  in  respect  to  Germany  are  also  more  or  less 
applicable  to  other  European  countries. 

The  monopoly  of  the  British  iron-masters  is  broken.  Mr.  Bell, 
speaking  further  of  the  reduction  of  prices  and  expansion  of  the  industry, 
said: 

There  was  a  considerable  increase  in  the  make  of  iron  between  1870  and  1875. 
I  have  here  the  prices  of  Cleveland  iron  from  1870  to  1879;  this  kind  of  pig  iron 
brought  505.  and  30'.  in  1870,  49J.  8(/.  in  1871,  and  1872  795.  id.  1872  and  1873  were 
years  that  I  mentioned  before  as  being  exceptionally  good  ones;  in  1873  it  was  109^. 
2d.\  in  1S74,  -JOS.  iid.\  in  1S75,  54^.  and  6d.\  in  1876,  47^.  and  iod.\  in  1877  42^.  and  id.\ 
in  1878,  39?.  and  id.,  and  in  1879,  34s.  and  4(/.  The  make  of  the  whole  world,  as  nearly 
as  I  have  been  able  to  estimate  it,  was  11,565,000  tons  in  1870. 

The  monopoly  of  the  iron  trade  held  by  the  English  masters  at  this 
time  enabled  them  to  take  advantage  of  conditions,  fix  prices  to  suit  them- 
selves and  reap  enormous  profits.  To  be  sure,  an  unusual  demand  arose 
at  this  time  irom  extensive  railroad  building  and  other  causes,  yet  no 
increase  in  the  cost  of  production  occurred  excepting  a  slight  advance  in 
wages,  yet  the  profits  were  very  large.  The  ability  of  a  country  holding 
a  monopoly  of  a  trade  to  take  advantage  of  such  conditions  and  levy 
a  tribute  on  the  buyers  of  the  world,  was  well  understood  bj'  the  free 
trade  party  in  1846,  and  was  the  chief  cause  of  their  desire  to  make  Eng- 
land the  sole  manufacturing  nation  of  the  world.  As  competition  arose 
prices  declined.  Had  other  countries  neglected  to  build  up  their  industries 
under  protection,  England  would  have  continued  to  "suck  in  gold,  gold, 
gold,"  as  Mrs.  Trollope  said.  Notwithstanding  the  constant  harping 
about  protection's  raising  prices,  through  the  rival  industries  which  have 
been  reared  under  its  influence,  the  consumers  of  the  world  are  undoubt- 
edly getting  cheaper  iron  than  they  could  ever  have  hoped  for  under  free 
trade  monopoly. 

'  Second  Report  Part  I.  pp.  41-42. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Mr.  Bell  continues  : 

In  the  year  of  1872,  which  was  the  commencement  of  two  or  three  years  of  high 
prices,  the  make  had  risen  to  14,345,000  tons.  After  1S79  an  extraordinary  change 
became  apparent  in  the  volume  of  make  (of  the  world),  for  during  the  ensuing  five 
years  the  average  make  was  close  on  iS,ooo,ooo  tons,  and  in  one  of  them,  1SS3,  it  rose 
to  21,663,000  tons,  or  nearly  50  per  cent  on  what  it  was  in  1879.  The  make  in  the 
United  States  has  increased  from  1SS4,  131  per  cent  on  the  make  of  1870.  That  of  the 
rest  of  the  world  in  1884  is  237.9  above  that  year.  The  production  of  Great  Britain 
rose  between  1S70  and  1S83  from  5,963,000  tons  to  8,529,000  tons,  but  the  foreign 
quantity  rose  from  5.602,000  tons  to  12,534,000  tons. 

The  iron  industrj'  of  the  United  Kingdom  has  not  only  received  a 
set-back  in  the  development  of  the  industrj^  in  other  countries  by  the  loss 
of  foreign  trade,  but  by  maintaining  open  ports  the  consumers  of  England 
are  making  large  purchases  abroad.  The  increase  of  imports  for  home 
consumption  of  some  of  the  leading  metal  manufactures  from  i  S60  to  1 890, 
were  as  follows: 


i860. 

1890. 

I423.565 
297,160 
300,810 
220,335 
668, 1 10 

1  1,372,375 

279.785 

453.060 

13,843,200 

2,220,835 

Brass,  Bronze,  etc., 

Copper 

Total, 

jSi, 909,980 

118,189,255 

I 


While  the  imports  have  been  increasing,  as  disclosed  by  the  foregoing 
figures,  since  1874  the  exports  of  domestic  productions  have  declined.  In 
1872-3-4  the  total  exports  of  iron  and  steel  manufactures  were  $143,- 
520,242.  During  the  following  twenty  years  of  marvelous  development 
in  other  countries,  as  competition  increased  the  exports  declined  to  $118,- 
908,362  in  1890-1-2,  a  decrease  of  17.  i  percent.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that  from  the  beginning  of  railroad  building  in  1850  to  1874, 
the  British  iron-masters  supplied  the  world  with  the  larger  portion  of 
materials  for  their  construction.  The  export  of  railroad  iron  of  all  sorts 
from  the  United  Kingdom  in  1872-3-4  was  $50,470,966;  by  1890-1-2  it  had 
declined  to  $20, 136,125.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  first  steel  rails 
were  made  in  the  United  States  about  1867,  when  protective  duties  were 
first  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  giving  employment  to  American  labor  in 
making  them  for  American  railways.  A  similar  decline  has  taken  place 
in  British  hardware  and  cutlery,  which  amounted  to  $24,052,361  in 
1872-3-4,  and  to  $12,477,912  in  1880-1-2,  a  decline  of  48  per  cent. 

In  connection  with  the  foregoing,  the  evidence  given  before  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industry',  becomes  very  interesting. 
The  witnesses  point  out  in  specific  detail  the  causes  which  have  brought 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


about  the  decline  of  various  branches  of  this  industry  in  the  United  King- 
dom. The  reduction  in  wages  which  have  been  made  to  enable  them  to  resist 
the  invasion  of  their  home  market  and  to  hold  foreign  trade,  shows  clearly 
that  the  cost  of  labor  in  production  is  the  very  basis  of  successful  compe- 
tition. Another  fact  is  brought  out  verj'  clearly,  that  were  it  not  for  pro- 
tective tariffs  imposed  by  the  United  States,  we  should  be  using  imported 
hardware  and  cutlery,  our  railway  trains  would  be  drawn  by  foreign-made 
locomotives,  over  rails  made  in  England  or  on  the  Continent.  The 
advantage  of  iron  and  coal,  without  protective  tariffs,  would  not  have 
enabled  us  to  develop  the  vast  iron  and  steel  industry  which  has  now 
become  one  of  the  great  sources  of  our  industrial  prosperity. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  now  called  to  the  testimony  of  numerous 
witnesses  examined  before  the  Royal  Commission: 

James  Willis  Dixon,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
SheSield,  was  examined  and  said  : ' 

Q.  Do  you  notice  in  ShetEeld  any  symptoms  of  what  may  be  called  depression  ? 
A.  Certainly.  There  are  many  houses  to  let,  the  value  of  land  has  gone  down  verj- 
considerably,  and  the  value  of  house  property  has  gone  down  from  30  to  40  per  cent. 
The  value  of  land  has  gone  down  40  per  cent  at  least  outside  the  town,  although  in 
the  centre  of  the  town  it  remains,  perhaps,  about  the  same. 

The  steel  rail  trade  has  left  the  town,  and  last  year,  speaking  of  the  Limited  Com- 
panies, their  value  has  depreciated  two  million  pounds  sterling.  There  is  not  any 
fresh  building  going  on.  I  should  like  to  say  that  I  consider  it  about  at  a  standstill 
at  the  present  moment;  it  was  never  so  difficult  to  let  houses  or  to  sell  land.  It  is 
attributable  to  the  want  of  more  profitable  orders  coming  into  Sheffield,  and  I  think  to 
the  decline  of  trade.  If  you  ask  me  what  the  cause  of  the  decline  of  trade  is,  I 
could  perhaps  give  a  few  reasons.  I  know  some  glass  cutters  who  have  failed,  parti)' 
owing  to  the  competition  from  the  importation  of  German  glass.  The  Germans  export 
iron  and  steel  rails  and  tires  and  axles  to  Italy  and  Spain,  and  to  other  countries  where 
there  are  low  markets,  and  orders  often  go  there  in  consequence. 

Speaking  generally,  of  course,  when  the  agricultural  interest  of  this  country  is  de- 
pressed the  Sheffield  trade  is  depressed  in  proportion,  and  I  believe  that  the  agricultural 
interest  is  very  greatly  depressed,  owing  in  a  great  measure  to  the  low  price  of  cereals, 
as  corn  may  be  brought  into  this  country  at  a  rate  of  carriage  which  is  very  small.  I 
know  this,  because  my  travelers  are  all  over  the  agricultural  districts  of  England  and 
Scotland,  and,  of  course,  I  am  hearing  about  every  day  from  them,  and  the  general 
cry  is,  the  depression  of  trade.  Then  there  are  the  American  duties.  I  had  a  fine 
trade  with  America  about  twenty-five  years  ago,  a  magnificent  trade.  I  had  an  agent 
there  who  was  paid  ^400  a  year,  to  keep  stock  there,  and  who  did  a  big  business. 
It  is  all  gone  and  I  do  not  send  dd.  worth  to  the  United  States  to-day.  And  other 
firms  are  similarly  situated  with  myself.  I  had  a  very  large  Canadian  trade.  Four  or 
five  years  ago  I  did  several  thousands  a  year  with  Canada,  but  the  Canadians  put  on 
the  duties,  and  I  do  not  do  a  thousand  now  with  Canada.  That  is  another  reason  for 
the  depression  of  trade  in  Sheffield. 

Then  the  French  have  altered  their  duties  from  ad  valorem  to  specific  for  many 

Shefiield  things.     I  know  that  in  my  village  of  Wadsley,  where  they  make  Wadsley 

flat  backs,  which  is  a  com'mon  knife  which  used  to  go  so  largely  in  France,  they  have 

great  destitution  in  that  callage.     I  live  in  that  village  and  I  came  up  from  there  on 

1  Royal  Commissiou,  Second  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  18. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Monday  to  London,  and  my  wife  said  to  me  as  I  was  coming  awaj',  "Several  of  the 
families  are  so  very  poor,  will  you  allow  me  to  order  soup  to  be  made  for  this  village  ?  " 
The  reason  is  the  alteration  of  duties  in  France.  Then  with  regard  to  Spain,  we  can- 
not get  in  there  at  all.  The  Russians,  too,  have  closed  their  markets.  They  are 
making  their  own  steel  rails  now.  By  the  Board  of  Trade  returns  I  see  that  the 
colony  of  Natal  we  were  doing  five  years  ago  ^8,000,000  worth,  but  they  are  not  doing 
^4,000,000  worth  to-day.  I  had  a  fine  trade  there,  but  it  is  about  closed.  The  Ger- 
mans are  cutting  the  Shefliield  cut-glass  industry  out.  They  come  over  to  this  country 
and  buy  the  patterns  and  they  come  back  and  sell  glass  here  at  half  price.  I  consider 
that  the  trades-unions  in  Sheffield  hamper  trade  and  keep  up  the  rate  of  wages  abnor- 
mally, and  keep  up  the  price  of  labor  more  than  it  would  be  if  there  were  not  trades- 
unions;  and,  of  course,  that  handicaps  the  Sheffield  manufacturer  considerably  against 
foreign  competition,  and  that  is  a  very  serious  thing.  Q.  As  you  are  aware  we  are- 
frequently  told  that  if  any  country  imposes  an  import  duty  on  manufactures  it  raises 
the  cost  of  manufacture  in  the  country  imposing  it  ?  I  am  anxious  to  know  whether 
that  has  been  the  case  in  Germany?  A.  I  believe  that  has  a  great  tendency  to  keep 
out  my  goods  from  Germany.  O.  But  could  you  say  whether  it  has  tended  to  increase 
the  cost  of  production  in  Germany,  and  so  to  lessen  German  competition  in  England?- 
A.  It  has  not  lessened  German  competition,  it  has  increased  it.  I  used  to  do  a  splendicj. 
trade  in  Britannia  metal  in  Germany  twenty  years  ago.  I  could  go  and  sell  five 
hundred  waiters  in  a  day,  whereas,  I  could  not  sell  one  now.  The  competition  is. 
keener  (in  England).  I  have  seen  the  Germans  coming  here  in  shoals.  I  can  only  tell 
you  this,  that  I  have  more  German  people  coming  here,  and  I  buy  more  German  goods, 
myself,  and  I  find  the  people  that  I  know  in  business  are  buying  more  German  goods. 
There  are  merchants  in  the  city  of  London  who  used  to  buy  goods  for  the  colonies  and 
for  foreign  countries  in  England  ten  years  ago,  but  the)'  now  go  and  buy  in  Germany 
goods  apparently  equal,  and  at  a  much  less  price,  and  the  orders  are  to  buy  German 
goods  and  not  to  buy  English  goods,  and  so  they  beat  us. 

This  is  an  important  fact  to  be  considered,  because  trade  of  this  char- 
acter is  not  disclosed  by  the  official  records  of  imports  and  exports  of  the 
United  Kingdom.  Goods  purchased  bj'  British  jobbers  on  the  Continent 
and  resold  in  other  countries  are  shipped  direct  from  the  countr>-  in  which 
they  are  produced  to  the  place  of  destination.  An  increasing  trade  of  this 
character  can  be  carried  on  without  giving  employment  to  English  labor. 
As  productive  industries  are  made  unprofitable  at  home  by  excessive  com- 
petition and  poverty  of  customers;  as  domestic  industries  are  .supplanted 
and  die  off,  capital  instead  ®f  going  into  other  pursuits  at  home,  seeks  the 
foreign  trade  of  btiying  in  one  country  to  sell  in  another,  which  Adam 
Smith  regarded  as  the  least  profitable  trade  for  a  nation. 

I.  T.  Smith,  director  and  general  manager  of  the  Barrow  Hematite 
Steel  Company,  said  on  examination  :  ' 

The  export  of  steel  rails  practically  ceased  to  the  United  States  ten  or  twelve  years 
ago;  it  was  in  consequence  of  the  high  duties  that  existed  in  the  United  States.  Pro^ 
tection  has  enableil  the  Americans  to  hold  their  own  market  as  against  English  com- 
petition up  to  two  months  ago,  when  we  broke  through  it  with  an  order  we  then 
obtained;  and  we  had  to  pay  upon  those  rails  f  17  of  duty,  and  &s.  freight,  tliat  is  J19. 
The  duty  is  now  $17,  it  was  in  fact  I27  only  a  moderate  period  ago;  the  duty  has  been 
reduced  several  times,  but  always  kept  .at  such  a  point  that  we  have  been  unable  to 
compete  with  them  until  just  recently. 

'  Royal  Commission,  Second  Report,  I'art  I.,  p.  59. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


This  is  a  confirmation  of  the  statement  of  Mr.  James  M.  Swank,  secre- 
tar}^  of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association  of  America,  that  our  duties  on  steel 
rails  were  no  higher  than  they  ought  to  be.  The  attacks  which  have  been 
made  on  the  steel  rail  producers  of  the  United  States  have  emanated  from 
the  steel  rail  trust  of  Europe,  designed  solely  to  destroy  the  industry  in 
America  that  a  market  might  be  provided  for  the  produce  of  the  labor  and 
capital  of  aliens.  The  reduction  in  prices  which  followed  the  establish- 
ment of  the  steel  rail  industry  in  the  United  States  together  with  the 
employment  which  it  has  furnished  to  labor,  fully  vindicates  the  policy 
which  closed  our  markets  to  foreign-made  rails. 

O.  Can  3'ou  give  us  any  information  with  regard  to  the  association  which  we 
understand  has  been  formed  for  the  purpose  of  distributing  the  orders  received  for 
the  manufacture  of  rails?  A.  I  had  something  to  do  with  the  organization  of  that 
association,  and  the  conduct  of  it  since.  It  was  formed  two  years  ago,  at  which 
time  ste^l  rails  were  being  sold  at  less  than  £1^  per  ton  at  the  works.  The  quantity 
of  rails  that  were  required  then  had  fallen  off  to  about  one-third  of  what  it  had 
been  in  previous  years.  We  were  all  of  us  working  nothing  like  half  time,  the 
competition  became  so  keen  that  we  got  down  to  less  than  ^4  a  ton  at  the 
works.  After  some  time  the  makers  in  England,  all  except  one  firm,  agreed  to  join 
the  association,  and  it  was  decided  to  endeavor  to  associate  the  Belgians  and 
Germans  with  us,  as  being  the  only  two  countries  that  exported  rails.  It  ended, 
after  taking  the  figures  of  three  j-ears,  of  the  exports  from  the  three  countries,  that 
Great  Britain  kept  66  per  cent  of  the  entire  export  trade.  Belgium  had  7  per  cent 
and  Germany  had  27  per  cent.  We  have  since  modified  the  division  a  very 
little,  and  given  Germany  i  or  2  per  cent  more,  and  Belgium  yi  per  cent;  but 
in  effect  this  country  has  reserved  two-thirds  of  the  export  trade.  The  next  thing 
that  we  had  to  do,  having  agreed  upon  what  proportion  each  country  was  to  have  of 
the  orders  of  the  world,  was  to  agree  amongst  oiirselves  how  we  should  divide  those 
orders,  and  we  thereupon  assessed  the  capabilities  of  each  work,  each  compain' 
representing  a  certain  number  of  parts  out  of  one  hundred  parts.  The  effect  of  this 
has  been  that  we  have  gone  on  for  two  j'ears  dividing  the  orders  in  something 
like  a  proper  proportion,  and  we  have  maintained  a  price  of  £4  13J.  a  ton  at  the 
works,   it  having  been  when  we  began,  ^^4. 

From  the  foregoing  facts  it  appears  that  the  destruction  of  the  steel 
rail  indu.stry  of  the  United  States,  through  a  repeal  of  our  protective 
tariffs,  would  commit  the  American  consumers  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a 
gigantic  foreign  steel  rail  trust,  in  which  the  great  European  countries 
are  united.  If  through  the  annihilation  of  steel  rail  production  in  the 
United  States,  the  steel  rail  trust  is  destroyed,  we  should  certainly  be  no 
better  off,  .so  far  as  this  class  of  trusts  is  concerned ;  hence,  it  appears  that 
trusts  must  be  dealt  with  through  a  different  class  of  legislation. 

Mr.  Smith  testified  further  that,  ' '  In  the  steel  works  during  the  last 
four  years,  I  should  think  the  wages  have  gone  down  20  per  cent,  they 
are  that  amount  less  now  than  they  were.  The  amount  of  employment  in 
this  particular  branch  of  trade  only  keep  the  men  at  work  half  the  time, 
and  their  work  is  less  per  day  now  than  it  was  four  or  five  years  ago. ' ' 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Charles  Belk,  master  cutler  of  Sheffield,  said: 

I  believe  that  we  are  quite  capable  of  holding  our  own  in  neutral  markets  with 
the  Americans  and  Germans.  Certain  markets,  to  some  extent,  have  been  closed 
against  us  within  the  past  twenty  years.  To  a  large  extent  the  markets  of  the 
United  States,  and  France  and  Germany.  The  market  of  the  United  States  has  been 
closed  for  the  benefit  of  the  home  producer ;  the  same  has  been  the  case  in  Germany, 
and  to   a  large  extent  in  France  also. 

In  many  of  the  trades  the  workmen  also  have  been  compelled,  by  the  pressure  of 
circumstances,  to  accept  lower  rates  of  wages,  but  on  the  other  hand,  in  other  trades 
there  is  no  material  reduction  in  the  rates ;  and  in  the  latter,  the  lack  of  employ- 
ment is  largely  compensated  by  the  exceptional  cheapness,  at  the  present  time,  of 
all  the  necessaries  of  life.  In  the  commoner  and  inferior  kinds  of  productions  there 
is  a  competition  which  is  appreciable.  I  think  it  is  attributable  largely  to  the  fact 
that  in  Germany  the  workmen  work  for  lower  wages  and  they  work  longer  hours. 
The  protective  duties  imposed  by  the  United  States,  have  been  the  cause,  to  a  great 
extent,  of  the  decreasing  amount  of  Sheffield  goods  that  went  there.  I  will  not  say 
that  the  United  States  has  benefited  by  the  imposition  of  those  duties,  but  it  is 
certain  that  Sheffield  has  suffered  from  the  imposition  of  those  duties.  ^ 

The  report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  from  Sheffield  states : 

Formerly  a  most  lucrative  trade  was  carried  on  with  the  United  States,  which 
drew  very  large  supplies  of  goods  from  this  district.  The  duties,  however,  which 
have  been  placed  upon  these  goods  have  for  the  present,  at  any  rate,  extinguished 
the  trade,  except  where  great  excellenceof  quality  renders  the  cost  no  object.  From 
Germany  the  lower  qualities  of  goods  made  in  this  district  have  been  almost  entirely 
shut  out  by  duties,  and  the  same  remarks  apply  to  France  and  to  Italy. 

Thomas  Edward  Vickers,  engaged  for  many  j'ears'in  .the  crucible  bar 
and  sheet  steel  trade,  and  also  in  the  manufacture  of  steel  for  ordnance, 
marine  and  locomotive  works,  was  examined  and  said  :" 

A  number  of  years  ago  there  was  a  very  large  export  from  Sheffield  of  steel  in 
bars  and  sheets,  for  the  manufacture  of  tools  of  all  classes.  My  business  in  this 
trade  was  chiefly  with  America,  and  is  nearly  extinct  now.  The  loss  is  not  only 
with  America,  but  with  other  markets,  and  they  have  gained  nothing  else  in  return. 
O.  What  was  the  cause  of  your  losing  those  markets?  A.  The  high  duties  against 
us.  The  amount  of  trade  in  bar  and  sheet  steel  with  America,  in  1864,  of  my  firm, 
was  /83,ocio;  last  year  our  whole  business  with  America  was  under  ^4000  in  value. 
Again,  our  trade  with  that  country  in  railway  material  amounted  to  /ioo,ooo  in 
1873,  and  last  year  it  did  not  reach  £1000.  This  manufacture  afforded  employment 
for  colliers,  steel  converters,  steel  melters,  and  their  furnace  men,  crucible  makers, 
clay  getters,  filters,  foremen,  rod  and  sheet  rollers,  sheet  shearers,  and  a  large 
number  of  other  men  connected  with  the  inspection,  packing,  etc.,  of  the  steel. 
Q.  Have  those  men  who  were  so  employed  lost  their  employment?  A.  Many  have 
lost  their  employment.  Q.  A  further  explanation  of  their  diminished  employment 
is,  that  a  new  process  was  .substituted  for  the  old,  which  does  not  require  so  much 
labor;  is  that  your  view?  A.  Not  at  all,  it  is  because  the  trade  has  entirely  gone 
away  from  us.  If  we  could  recover  our  old  business  with  America  we  should  givi- 
employment  again  to  this  class  of  men.  Q.  Are  you  able  to  compete  with  America 
in  neutral  markets?  A.  Certainly;  I  do  not  at  all  believe  in  American  workmen 
being  superior  to  English  workmen,  as  some  people  choose  to  say,  and  therefore 
1  Royal  Commission,  Secoud  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  74.  '  Id.,  p.  108. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


able  to  manufacture  at  a  lower  cost.  My  idea  is  that  no  help  can  be  given  to  trade 
excepting  by  utilizing  our  colonies,  and  making  some  federation  by  which  we  get 
free  trade  with  our  colonies,  and  tax  other  countries  which  do  not  give  us  free 
trade.  The  development  of  the  manufactories  in  the  colonies,  has  not  been  so  great 
as  within  the  United  States.  It  certainly  could  not  be  because  the  manufactures  in 
the  United  States  have  been  fostered  by  their  tariffs.  The  development  in  Ger- 
many has  been  greatly  accelerated  by  the  adoption  of  a  distinctive  protection 
policy.  Q.  I  am  anxious  to  obtain  your  opinion  as  to  whether  this  large  inducement 
which  is  offered,  by  the  operation  of  the  high  tariffs,  has  deflected  the  movement 
of  capital  and  skill,  which  otherwise  would  have  gone  from  this  country  to  our 
colonies,  to  the  United  States,  and  so  developed  America  at  the  expense  of  our  own 
colonies?  A.  I  think  it  must  have  done  so.  There  has  been  a  very  great  emigration 
from  Sheffield  to  the  United  States,  very  little  to  Germany,  and  to  Russia  very 
slight.  The  emigrants  to  America  remain  there.  I  have  only  heard  of  individuals 
returning.  The  new  steel  industries  of  America  will  be  chiefly  established  upon 
skill  imported  from  Sheffield.  The  United  States  manufacturers  cannot  compete 
with  us  outside  of  the  States.  The  manufacture  of  steel  in  the  United  States  must 
simply  be  for  their  own  market,  which  was  for  many  years  the  most  valuable  market 
we  had.  Their  highly  paid  labor  necessarily  involves  expensive  manufacture.  The 
United  States  cannot  compete  with  us  in  Canada,  although  they  are  next  door.  We 
receive  no  competition  from  the  United  States  in  Australia,  or  in  India,  or  in  any 
other  colon}'. 

The  reader  will  note  the  important  fact  brought  out  bj'  the  foregoing 
evidence,  that  wages  enter  so  largely  into  iron  manufacturing  that  the 
high  wages  paid  in  the  United  States  stand  in  the  way  of  successful  com- 
petition with  England ;  that  the  only  way  by  which  we  can  hold  our  own 
markets  against  England  under  free  trade,  to  say  nothing  about  getting  a 
share  of  foreign  trade,  would  be  by  a  radical  reduction  of  the  wages  of 
American  labor. 

Stewart  Uttley,  practical  file  smith  and  general  secretary  of  Sheffield's 
Trades  Council,  said: 

One  of  the  principal  matters  which  appears  to  affect  our  trade,  and  likely  to 
affect  our  trade  in  Sheffield  in  future,  is  that  of  spurious  goods  and  false  marks. 
Since  the  introduction  of  the  Bessemer  process  there  has  been  brought  into  the 
market  a  cheap  class  of  steel  used  for  purposes  where  a  keen  cutting  edge  is  not 
required,  but  admitted  by  most  competent  judges  to  be  practically  unfitted  for  many 
of  the  purposes  for  which,  in  consequence  of  the  great  difference  in  price  between 
it,  and  the  best  crucible  steel,  it  is  used.  This  matter  of  imposition  is  so  glaring  that 
Dr.  Webster,  the  American  Consul  for  Sheffield,  in  his  report  to  the  American  Gov- 
ernment for  1884,  makes  special  reference  to  it  in  the  following  terms:  "It  is  an  open 
secret  that  thousands  of  tons  of  Bessemer  are  sold  annually  as  cast  steel  for  the  home 
as  well  as  the  foreign  market."  He  stated,  "that  a  steel  manufacturer  had  boasted 
that  he  bought  steel  at  $50,  and  sold  it  for  $250. ' '  The  Consul  also  refers  to  the 
ancient  practice  of  the  Sheffield  Cutler's  Co.,  of  enforcing  the  public  destruction  of 
any  cutlery  which  was  found  to  be  of  material  inferior  to  what  it  professed  to  be. 
These  remarks  are  supported  by  the  statement  of  Sir  Henry  Bessemer,  that  at  least 
one-half  of  the  crucible  steel  made  in  SheflSeld  was  made  from  Bessemer  scraps. 
This  scrap  is  worth  at  the  best  from  /4  to  /5  per  ton,  when  crucible  steel  ought  to 
contain  a  large  proportion  of  the  best  Swedish  bar  iron,  worth  about  ^15  per  ton. 
On  table-knife  blades  and  butchers'  blades  there  are  four  systems  of  producing  the 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


blades.  First,  the  forging  b}^  hand,  which  is  the  system  adopted  by  all  respectable 
firms  for  their  best  goods,  and  in  many  instances  for  the  commoner  qualities; 
secondly,  forging  by  machinery,  commonly  called  "goffing;"  thirdlj',  flying  or 
stamping  out  of  common  Bessemer  sheet  steel ;  and  fourthly,  the  system  of  producing 
the  blades  from  casting  from  common  pig-iron.  As  every  practical  man  knows  that 
the  finest  properties  of  a  blade  consists  in  its  elasticity  and  evenness  of  temper,  and 
accompanied  with  a  proper  bevel  from  back  to  edge,  and  as  the  more  a  blade  is 
hammered  the  more  elastic  and  uniform  in  temper  it  becomes,  it  naturally  follows 
that  the  blade  which  has  been  subjected  to  the  most  careful  hammering  and  the 
greatest  care  in  shaping,  is  by  far  the  best.  The  goffed  blades  are  very  inferior  in 
shape  and  finish,  and  not  receiving  the  care  which  as  a  rule  are  received  by  those 
forged  by  hand,  cannot  possibly  be  as  good.  As  regards  filed  blades,  the  material 
out  of  which  they  are  made,  as  a  rule,  is  very  inferior,  the  shape  imperfect,  and 
being  subjected  to  little  or  no  hammering,  are  lacking  in  all  the  properties  of  a 
good  blade.  This  would  not  matter  so  much,  were  it  not  for  the  practice  which 
so  largely  prevails  of  marking  the  blade  "Warranted  Shear,"  or  "Cast  Steel. 
Sheffield,"  when  they  really  are  made  from  Bessemer  with  the  obvious  intention  of 
deceiving  the  purchaser,  as  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  shear  and  cast  steel  are  the 
very  best  for  blades,  and  SheflSeld,  possessing  the  reputation  for  producing  both  steel 
and  blades,  customers  observing  the  mark  are  induced  to  buy,  but  for  all  practical 
purposes  they  are  useless. 

Mr.  Robert  Holmshaw,  another  member  of  the  above-named  society, 
and  a  Sheffield  artisan,  testified  on  the  same  day  that,  "The  last  instance 
in  which  an  inferior  quality  of  goods  was  destroyed  in  Sheffield  would  be 
thirty-five  years  ago,  and  that  was  destroyed  in  what  was  called  'Paradise 
Square. '  ' '  Thus  it  appears  from  the  evidence  of  these  experienced  arti- 
sans of  Sheffield,  that  the  effect  of  the  excessive  competition  to  which 
manufacturers  of  this  famous  manufacturing  centre  have  been  subjected, 
is  enforcing  the  use  of  poor  material,  and  the  making  of  an  inferior  qual- 
ity of  goods.  It  is  such  practical  experience  as  this  which  the  advocates 
of  protection  are  now  enabled  to  invoke  to  disprove  that  free  trade  dogma 
which  was  announced  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates,  and  which  has 
been  persistently  urged,  especially  by  theoretical  writers,  that  free  trade 
or  free  competition,  operated  as  a  stimulus  to  the  production  of  superior 
goods  and  finer  quality.  It  appears  that  the  desire  to  under.sell,  to  hold 
markets  and  outstrip  competitors,  indtices  the  perpetration  of  frauds  upon 
customers,  which  are  unknown  among  those  producers  who,  under  the 
shield  of  protective  regulations,  are  enabled  to  regard  something  besides 
mere  "cheapness' '  as  a  basis  upon  which  manufacturing  may  be  carried  on. 

In  regard  to  the  rate  of  wages  Mr.  Uttley  said  that  the  rate  of  wages 
for  skilled  artisans  in  Sheffield  was  lo  per  cent  lower  than  they  had  been 
for  five  years  before.  He  says:  "Now  the  generality  of  the  men  earn  at 
the  present  time,  from  iSs.  to  about  22.?.  a  week  for  piece  work." 

Mr.  Robert  Knight,  general  secretary  to  the  Boiler  Makers'  and  Iron 
Shipbuilders'  Society,  gave  the  following  testimony : 

Q.  What  do  you  say  with  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  industry  in  which  you 
arc  interested?     A.    It  is  in  a  most  deplorable  condition.     The  work  has  fallen  off 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


to  that  extent  that  we  have  fully  one-third  of  our  members,  who  are  usually  engaged 
in  ship-building,  out  of  employment  at  the  present  time.  The  number  last  year  (out 
of  employment)  was  3927  in  January,  6727  in  June,  and  9046  in  December,  showing 
an  average  of  6681  out  of  employment  during  the  whole  year,  being  23)4  per  cent  of 
the  society.  At  the  end  of  March,  27  per  cent  of  our  members  were  out  of  employ- 
ment, as  compared  with  25  per  cent  of  December  of  last  year.  O.  What  are  the  causes 
to  which  you  attribute  the  present  depression,  and  the  depressions  which  have  from 
time  to  time  succeeded  one  another?  A.  There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  with  refer- 
ence to  ship-building,  but  what  it  has  been  over-production  ;  it  applies  to  the  whole 
country. .  Q.  What  is  the  remedy  to  which  you  look?  A.  The  principal  remedies,  or 
one  of  the  remedies,  which  I  should  suggest,  would  be  the  taking  away  of  the  large 
surplus  labor  that  we  have,  to  our  colonies,  and  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  especially  the 
ones  from  the  agricultural  districts.  It  would  considerably  assist  the  labor  market  if 
that  was  done.  Some  few  years  ago  a  number  of  small  farms  were  turned  into  large 
farms,  and  on  account  of  the  breaking  up  of  small  farms  and  throwing  them  into  large 
farms,  there  was  the  displacement  of  a  large  number  of  hands;  not  only  the  small 
farmers  themselves  but  the  people  were  driven  away  from  their  homes,  some  driven 
into  the  towns,  and  others  driven  to  emigrate,  and  also  the  laboring  classes  of  men, 
such  as  wheelwrights  and  mechanics  of  different  kinds,  were  driven  from  the 
country  villages  into  the  towns  as  a  rule.  In  the  boiler-making  line  with  which  I 
am  connected,  also  which  belongs  to  the  same  society,  we  have  very  often  a  demand 
for  our  men  to  go  to  America  and  Australia,  and  to  different  colonies,  where  they 
have  found  employment,  and  many  of  their  friends  have  followed  them.  Q.  How 
are  your  wages  at  the  present  time,  as  compared  with  any  previous  time  that  you 
may  have  in  your  memory?  A.  The  piece  rates  would  be  something  like  40  per  cent 
below  what  they  were  four  years  ago.  The  day  rates  would  be  reduced  something 
like  10  per  cent,  I  should  think,  taking  them  all  around  over  the  last  three  or  four 
years.  The  day  rates  are  fully  t}4  per  cent  lower  than  they  were  ten  year  ago.  I 
am  including  the  whole  of  the  society,  which  will  include  boiler-makers  and 
riveters.  If  I  was  to  take  day  rates  that  are  paid  in  the  ship-building  yards,  it 
would  be  more  than  7)4  per  cent.  I  dare  say  that  the  day  rates  would  be  fully  15 
per  cent  below  what  they  were  ten  years  ago  in  the  ship-building  yards.  All  those 
men  who  are  out  of  employment,  about  one-third  of  our  society,  are  skilled 
mechanical  workmen.  The  actual  amount  of  earnings  is  40  per  cent  below  what  it 
was  a  few  years  ago.  The  increase  of  facilities  in  the  yards  affects  one  class  of  men 
only,  that  is  the  platers.  The  angle-ironsmith,  it  does  not  affect  him  in  the  least ; 
the  riveter,  it  does  not  affect  him  in  the  least ;  and  the  caulker,  it  does  not  affect 
him  in  the  slightest  degree;  the  only  one  that  is  affected  by  the  facilities  in  the 
yard  for  doing  the  work,  is  the  plater. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  better  for  those  9000  men  who  are  out  of  employment  at  the 
present  time,  if  they  cannot  get  6d.  an  hour,  would  it  not  be  better  for  them  to  take 
4(!'.,than  to  be  idle  and  going  about  the  streets  doing  nothing?  A.  If  they  were  to 
offer  to  work  at  2if.  an  hour,  it  would  make  no  difference,  for  there  is  not  the  work 
for  them  to  do.  There  is  the  fact  that  on  the  Tyne  at  the  present  moment,  there 
are  120  vessels  lying  up  with  nothing  to  do,  and  no  one  in  the  world  would  build 
vessels  if  they  have  not  got  work  for  them.  If  the  men  were  to  offer  to-day  to  work 
for  2d.  per  hour,  the  employers  would  not  lay  out  a  lot  of  money  in  building 
vessels. 

The  revolution  which  has  taken  place  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry 
during  the  past  twenty-five  years,  has  increased  the  necessity  of  maintain- 
ing the  policy  of   protection  in  the  United  States.     The  Continent  of 

iS 


ployme. 


Pt-oductive 
capacity  of 
British 

dustries. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Europe  to-daj'  has  a  vast  surplus  production  for  sale.  Neutral  markets 
are  being  contested  for  under  the  sharpest  competition  ever  known. 
British  industries  are  engaged  in  a  life-and-death  struggle  under  free 
trade.  With  the  best  markets  in  the  world  closed  in  great  part  to  their 
productions,  with  neutral  markets  being  divided  and  large  sales  being 
made  iu  their  home  market,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  unless  the  market  of  the 
United  States  is  thrown  open  to  them  their  trade  has  seen  its  best  daj'S. 
The  result  which  would  follow  such  an  event  is  perfecth'  well  understood 
by  the  British  manufacturers.  Their  facilities  for  production  are  so  vast, 
that  without  building  a  new  furnace  they  could  fully  supply  the  American 
market.  Speaking  of  their  productive  capacity,  Mr.  Mulhall  in  his 
"Dictionary  of  Statistics,"  states  that  the  iron  furnaces  of  Great  Britain 
had  a  productive  capacity  of  16,900,000  tons  in  1885,  while  their  actual 
production  was  only  7,500,000  tons.  The  English  manufacturers  reached 
their  highest  production  in  1882,  which  was  8,586,680  tons.  With  a 
capacity  double  their  highest  annual  production,  why  should  English  free 
traders  and  their  allies  be  advising  the  people  of  the  United  States  to 
adopt  free  trade  and  capture  the  markets  of  the  world ,  when  Great  Britain 
practicing  free  trade,  with  unlimited  quantities  of  iron  ore  and  fuel  lying 
at  the  doors  of  their  factories,  with  abundant  capital,  with  long  experi- 
ence, with  skilled  artisans  and  low  wages,  are  running  their  furnaces  at 
less  than  one-half  their  capacity  ?  The  question  suggests  itself,  if  there 
are  any  markets  of  the  world  which  are  not  already  pre-empted,  whj^  do 
not  English  manufacturers  rush  in  and  make  the  capture  themselves? 

Chemical  Industry. 
' '  The  only  waj'  to  compete  witli  Germany,  particularly,  would  be  by  a  reduction  of 
wages." — Testimony  0/  W.  Charles  Althusen  before  Royal  Commission. 

The  imports  of  chemicals  into  the  United  Kingdom,  which  were 
$1,702,405  in  i860,  increased  year  by  year  until  they  reached  $5,961,660 
in  1890  for  home  consumption.  The  loss  of  foreign  markets,  however, 
from  foreign  competition,  has  inflicted  a  severe  blow  upon  the  industry. 

The  following  evidence  upon  the  condition  of  the  chemical  industry 
of  the  United  Kingdom  is  very  important  in  many  respects.  In  the  first 
place,  the  long  business  experience,  ability  and  candor  of  the  witness 
gives  such  weight  to  his  expressions  upon  certain  economic  propositions 
that  they  command  the  most  careful  consideration.  The  injurious  effect 
of  free  competition  upon  the  industries  of  a  country,  is  clearly  proven. 
Low  wages  are  shown  to  be  the  only  means  15j^  which  England,  under  free 
trade,  can  resist  foreign  competition  and  fight  the  industrial  battle  in 
which  .she  is  engaged.  Another  fact  pointed  out  is,  the  very  slight 
improvement  in  wages  which  has  taken  place  in  this  industry  between 
1855  and  1885.  The  reductions  which  were  made  between  1876  and  18S5 
disclose  the  fact  that  English  manufacturers  have  been  attempting  to 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


accomplish  b}-  a  reduction  of  wages  what  might  have  been  secured  through 
protective  tariffs.  They  have  reached  a  point  where  their  home  market 
can  be  held  onl}-  by  sacrificing  the  comfort  and  prosperity  of  their  wage- 
earners.  This  is  not  only  occurring,  but  the  profits  of  manufacturers  are 
being  wiped  out  and  industries  destroyed.  It  is  a  most  significant  fact 
that  after  forty  years'  experience  with  free  trade  the  witness,  who  was 
an  eminent  tariff  reformer  with  Richard  Cobden,  should  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  free  trade  is  a  failure,  and  that  reciprocity  treaties  would 
have  been  more  beneficial  to  their  interests. 

Charles  Althusen,  who  has  been  in  business  since  1840  as  a  member 
of  the  firm  of  Charles  Atwood  &  Co. ,  chemical  manufacturers,  said : 

I  may  remark  that  I  have  always  taken  a  great  interest  in  tariff  reform,  first 
with  a  view  of  bringing  about  the  removal  of  restrictions  in  this  countrj-,  and  sub- 
sequently I  was  actively  engaged  in  promoting  tariff  reforms  abroad.  I  visited 
France,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy,  Spain  and  Belgium,  and  from  the  support  I  received 
from  Her  Majesty's  Ministers,  some  good  resulted  from  my  exertions.  I  cannot 
hesitate  to  state  now  that  had  commercial  treaties  been  entered  into  before  our  Corn 
Laws  were  repealed,  our  commercial  relations  with  foreign  nations  would  have  been 
very  much  better  than  they  are  at  present.  I  am  able  to  speak  more  particularly 
with  regard  to  the  chemical  trade.  Upon  the  whole,  it  is  not  satisfactory.  It  is 
the  consequence  of  over-trading  and  competition.  Q.  Does  that  competition  come 
from  abroad  or  from  home?  A.  Latterly  it  has  come  from  abroad,  to  a  very  consider- 
able extent;  not  that  we  have  had  as  yet  any  very  large  imports  into  this  country, 
but  the  Germans,  particularly,  have  taken  our  markets  away  from  us.  The  first 
shipment  of  chemicals  to  Germany  was  made  by  me  in  1835,  to  within  a  few  years 
the  exports  were  constantly  increasing,  but  now  the  Germans  produce  about  120,000 
tons  of  soda  ash  animallj-,  which  is  more  than  sufficient  to  supply  their  wants.  O. 
Do  you  consider  we  are  in  a  position  in  this  country  to  compete  successfully  with 
foreign  countries  as  regards  chemicals?  A.  I  think  we  can  compete,  so  far  as  it 
concerns  the  cost  of  raw  materials.  I  think  we  are,  upon  the  whole,  upon  an 
equality  except  with  regard  to  labor. 

The  rate  of  wages  has  fallen  this  last  year  owing  to  the  compulsory  retirement 
of  some  of  the  manufacturers ;  the  trade  began  to  be  so  unproductive  that  several 
works  have  been  closed.  I  have  ascertained  the  wages  paid  in  Prussia,  which 
are  from  50  to  100  per  cent  below  our  rates,  though  the  hours  of  working  here  are 
fifty-four  against  seventy  hours  per  week  in  Germany.  Q.  Have  there  been  many 
works  closed  in  consequence  of  the  depression?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  precise 
number  of  works,  but  I  think  five  or  six  have  been  closed  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tyne.  Q.  What  do  you  look  to  as  the  best  means  to  be  taken  for  improving  the 
condition  of  the  trade,  especially  in  that  business?  A.  In  the  first  place,  bad 
trade  cannot  fail  to  lessen  production,  and  this,  probably,  will  increase  the  price 
of  the  articles  which  have  to  be  sold.  The  only  way  to  compete  with  Germany 
particularly,  would  be  by  a  reduction  of  wages,  but  how  that  is  to  be  brought 
about  is  the  difficulty.  That  it  must  come  is  to  me  perfectly  clear,  because 
when  employers  cannot  sell  their  productions  at  a  profit,  they  will  in  the  course 
of  time,  be  unable  to  pay  the  wages  now  required  by  the  men.  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  if  the  cost  of  labor  is  lessened  our  chance  of  competition 
will  be  ver\'  greatly  improved.  Taking  the  article  soda,  for  instance,  the  cost  is 
entirely  composed  of  labor,  except  for  the  royalties  paid  for  coals  and  salt,  and  at 
each  stage  the  wages  are  at  present  higher  than  our  competitors  abroad  have  to  pay. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


The  markets  for  our  productions  have  been  seriousU'  affected  bj-  the  operation 
of  foreign  tariffs.  The  raising  of  duties  in  every  country  lias  the  effect  of  lessening 
our  sales.  Having  always  taken  a  great  interest  in  reforms  of  foreign  tariffs,  Mr. 
Cobden  asked  me  to  go  to  Paris  with  him,  and  the  reduction  of  the  then  existing 
duties  on  chemicals  was  to  a  great  extent  placed  in  my  hands,  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Muspratt,  of  Liverpool.  The  duties  fixed  by  the  tariffs  then  arranged  gave  us 
temporarily,  a  considerable  trade  with  France;  but,  the  French  since  then,  have 
lessened  the  cost  of  production,  and  our  exports  of  chemicals  to  that  countrj-  have 
consequently  ceased,  solely  excepting  small  quantities  of  bleaching  powder.  The 
present  duty  on  soda  surpasses  33  per  cent  on  its  value. 

Q.  You  are  aware,  I  suppose,  that  there  was  a  great  increase  in  German  duties 
in  1879;  did  that  affect  your  branch  of  the  trade?  A.  It  has  affected  us  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  but  I  think  we  are  more  affected  by  the  Germans  having  become 
our  competitors.  The  German  manufacturers  made  fortunes,  and  as  a  consequence 
they  greatly  enlarged  their  establishments.  They  send  a  considerable  quantity  of 
their  products  to  America,  where  we  had  the  entire  market  in  former  years.  Q. 
Are  the  Americans  making  much  progress  in  their  chemical  manufactories?  A. 
They  are  attempting  to  do  it,  and  they  may  succeed,  but  their  high  wages  are 
against  them. ' 

The  opinion  of  the  witness  that  the  United  States  can  never  become 
a  competitor  with  England  and  Continental  countries,  so  long  as  the  pres- 
ent high  wage  rate  is  maintained,  corroborates  the  oft  repeated  statements 
of  American  manufacturers.  The  opinion  of  one  such  witness  should 
outweigh  the  speculations  of  those  theoretical  writers  who  have  become 
the  advocates  of  a  policy  which  has  been  condemned  by  the  experience  of 
business  men. 

Paper  Industry. 

The  paper  industry  is  not  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  which  is 
shown  to  prevail  with  regard  to  all  British  industries.  With  their  ports 
open  to  receive  the  surplus  products  of  the  Continent,  they  have  suffered 
as  all  free  trade  countries  must  suffer  when  so  exposed.  The  imports  into 
England  in  i860  were  only  $511,900.  No  sooner  had  the  duty  been 
removed  than  imports  began  to  increase. 

In  1875  they  amounted  to  $4,767,540  for  home  consumption,  and  by 
1890  they  had  reached  $9,201,640.  During  this  time  the  exports  of  paper 
made  in  English  factories  increased  from  $4,540,170  in  1S72-3-4,  to 
$7,508,987  in  1890-1-2.  By  1890  they  had  reached  the  point  under  free 
trade,  where  they  were  buying  more  paper  than  they  were  selling.  This 
is  certainly  a  result  which  was  never  contemplated  by  Mr.  Cobden  and 
his  associates.  The  situation  of  the  industry  was  disclosed  by  the  follow- 
ing evidence  before  the  Royal  Commission. 

Frederick  Pratt  Barlow,  paper  manufacturer  in  Hertfordshire,  was 
examined  and  gave  evidence  as  follows: 

I  should  like  to  supplement  the  evidence  by  giving  an  account  of  my  tour  this 
last  fortnight  in  Germany.     This  Easter  some  eminent  Scotch   papermakers  and  I 
'  Royal  Cimiinis.sioii,  Report  HI,  p.  264. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  IXnVSTRIES. 


went  across  in  order  to  try  and  discover  the  reason  of  all  this  foreign  competition, 
and  why  the  Germans  were  able  to  compete  with  us  so  successfully.  We  visited 
seventeen  mills  on  the  Rhine  and  in  Saxony  and  Bohemia.  The  papers  we  saw 
being  made,  and  which  were  sold  in  Germany  itself,  appeared  to  be  fetching  very 
good  prices,  indeed;  I  mean  prices  which  we  should  consider  good  for  similar 
papers  in  England.  But  in  every  mill  we  saw  them  making  paper  for  the  English 
market,  and  these  papers  were  being  shipped  to  London  or  to  India,  or  to  the  colo- 
nies, at  prices  far  below  the  prices  at  which  the  same  papers  were  selling  in  Ger- 
many and  in  Bohemia.  They  seemed  to  look  upon  England,  as  one  man  expressed 
to  me,  as  a  sort  of  rubbish  heap  on  to  which  he  could  shoot  all  of  his  surplus 
products  by  getting  rid  of  so  much  a  week,  at  cost  price  or  a  little  below.  He 
explained  that  he  was  able  to  keep  down  the  expenses  of  the  mill,  and  so  make  a 
handsome  profit  on  the  paper  that  he  sold  in  his  own  market,  where  it  could  not 
be  disturbed  at  all  by  British  competition.  There  was  one  particular  paper  which  we 
were  shown,  that  was  selling  in  Berlin  for  three-pence,  and  the  same  paper  was 
selling  in  London  for  two-pence,  notwithstanding  its  coming  from  the  furthest 
end  of  Saxony,  by  rail  and  river,  and  consequently  being  trans-shipped  no  less  than 
three  times.  At  one  mill — I  was  not  at  that  particular  mill — they  told  my  friend 
with  glee  that  they  were  making  English  postal  cards  for  the  English  Government. 
The  wages  we  found  to  be  about  half  what  we  would  pay  for  similar  labor  in  Eng- 
land, that  is  to  say,  a  skilled  workman  was  getting  ^s.  6ci.  a  day,  against  six  shil- 
lings; material  seemed  to  be  about  the  same  in  both  countries,  our  coals  and 
chemicals  being  cheaper,  and  their  wood  and  straw  possibly  were  cheaper,  but  not 
to  any  great  extent.  We  found  in  the  mills  we  visited  from  two  to  five  machines. 
Much  as  we  would  expect  to  find  in  a  similar  number  of  mills  in  England,  the 
machines  varied  from  sixty  inches  up  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  inches  in 
breadth.  Some  manufacturers  seemed  to  keep  one  or  two  of  their  machines  going 
entirely  for  the  English  market.  All  through,  as  far  as  we  could  see,  they  tried  to 
keep  their  output  always  up  to  the  maximum.  It  makes  all  the  difference  to  the 
profit  when  the  utmost  is  obtained  out  of  the  plant  in  the  course  of  a  week. 

Q.  What  do  you  consider  is  the  part  of  their  system  which  affects  us  most?  A. 
The  protective  duty  on  the  finished  article.  Q.  How  would  you  propose  to  meet 
that?  A.  I  should  like  to  see  a  countervailing  duty  of  the  same  amount.  In 
Germany  the  protective  duty  is  equivalent  to  a  half -penny  a  pound  on  the  paper.  It 
amounts  to  33  per  cent  on  the  cheapest  papers  that  are  exported  from  Germany. 
The  effect  of  the  protective  tariff  was  to  give  them  the  entire  command  of  their  own 
home  trade.  This  has  induced  them  to  begin  the  large  works  which  they  possess 
at  the  present  time.  Q.  The  effect  of  that  has  been  to  enable  them  in  consequence 
of  their  securing  a  steady  market,  greatly  to  increase  the  field  of  their  productive 
skill,  and  of  course  to  improve  and  economize  the  production?  A.  No  doubt.  Q. 
And  that  therefore  tends  to  make  them  stronger  in  international  competition?  A. 
Yes.  Q.  Might  we  not  assume  that  the  same  effect  could  be  produced  here;  might 
we  not  assume  that  if  the  paper  trade  of  this  country  were  placed  in  secure  posses- 
sion of  the  home  market,  by  an  adequate  import  duty,  the  effect  would  be  to  give  more 
constant  employment  to  those  engaged  in  the  trade?  A.  That  is  what  we  maintain. 
Q.  It  would,  therefore,  increase  the  magnitude  of  our  operations  and  the  economy 
of  our  production?  A.  I  think  so.  Q.  And  do  not  the  Germans  complain  of 
import  duties  on  those  chemicals  as  being  a  very  serious  burden  on  their  manu- 
facture? A.  No.  We  asked  them  that  question,  and  they  did  not  seem  to  consider 
it  a  very  serious  matter.  Q.  Then  you  would  not  agree  with  this  consul's  report,  in 
which  he  says,  that  those  chemicals  would  have  a  very  sensible  influence  upon  the  cost 
of  production  of  paper,  and  that  the  taxing  of  them  is  a  positive  disadvantage,  so 
much  so  that  the  working  people  mix   chloride  of   lime,  alum,  caustic   soda  and 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


ultramarine?     A.   We  did  not  hear  them  complaiu  of  that.     All  about  Dresden  there 
are  chemical  factories  on  a  large  scale  now. ' 

G.  Chater,  Jr.,  said  : 

Q.  The  high  class  of  papers  are  all  made  of  English  manufacture,  are  they 
not?  A.  We  suffer  a  great  deal  from  the  Austrian  competition  in  writing  paper. 
The  English  manufacturers  make  as  good  paper  as  the  Austrians,  and  better,  but 
they  cannot  afford  to  make  it  at  the  same  price.  Q.  Do  you  suffer  from  American 
competition  at  all?  A.  Not  directly.  We  suffer  from  American  competition  in 
some  of  the  neutral  markets,  such  as  South  America — they  are  trying  to  develop 
a  trade  with  South  America.' 

Q.  \Vhat  do  you  say  to  this ;  I  had  a  paper  placed  in  my  hands  a  few  days  ago, 
and  I  was  informed  that  the  paper  was  manufactured  in  America ;  that  the  type  was 
manufactured  in  America ;  that  the  ink  with  w^hich  it  was  printed  was  made  in 
America;  that  the  machine  with  which  it  was  printed  was  also  made  in  America; 
and  it  was  really  spoken  of  very  gratefullj'  ;  could  you  give  us  any  idea 
whether  the  English  manufacturers  could  make  the  same  quality  of  paper?  A.  Yes, 
undoubtedly.  2 

The  questioner  should  also  have  added  that  not  one  of  these  things 
could  have  occurred  had  it  not  been  for  the  system  of  protection  to  home. 
indu.stries  practiced  in  America. 

The  evidence  of  other  witnesses  shows  that  Belgium  has  also  become 
a  competitor.  France  and  the  United  States  are  supplying  their  own 
markets.  England  finds  herself  in  the  situation,  under  free  trade,  of  sur- 
rendering a  large  part  of  her  home  market  to  aliens,  while  neutral  markets 
are  being  largely  divided  by  the  surplus  production  of-  protectionist 
countries.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  an  experience  of  this  character 
should  incline  British  paper  manufacturers  to  see  the  folly  of  free  trade, 
and  the  wi.sdom  of  protection. 

Agriculture. 

.     .     .   a  bold  peasantry,  their  country's  pride. 
When  once  destroyed  can  never  be  supplied. 

In  a  protest  presented  by  the  peers  against  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws,  on  June  25,  1846,  the  following  reasons  were  given  for  their  oppo- 
sition to  the  measure:^ 

1.  Free  trade  will  make  this  country  dependent  upon  foreign  countries  for  the 
supply  of  food. 

2.  There  is  no  security  or  probability  of  other  countries'  adopting  it. 

3.  It  may  be  the  cause  of  throwing  lands  out  of  cultivation. 

4.  It  is  unjust  to  landed  interest,  which  is  subject  to  exclusive  burdens  for 
purposes  of  general  advantage. 

5.  The  loss  will  fall  most  heavily  on  tenant  farmers,  and  through  them  on 
agricultural  laborers. 

6.  Similar  results  will  befall  tradesmen  who  mainly  dcpeml  on  the  custom  of 
those  engaged  in  agriculture. 

I  Koyal  Commission,  Final  Report,  p.  13.        2  id.,  p.  10.        ^l-'air  Trade  Jourual,  Vol.  II.  p.  15. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


There  were  men  in  those  daj-s  who  foresaw  the  result  which  would 
follow  the  abandonment  of  the  policy  of  protection.  The  true  states- 
men of  the  time,  as  experience  has  proven,  were  protectionists,  and 
resisted  b^'  all  honorable  means  the  rash  and  shortsighted  policy  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Cobden.  The  peers  looked  upon  the  question  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  broad  and  enlightened  statesmanship.  They  dealt  with 
the  question  as  one  affecting  the  whole  realm.  They  believed  in  preserv- 
ing and  fostering  the  agricultural  interests,  as  well  as  the  manufacturing 
and  every  other.  Their  predictions  were  so  well  founded  that  after  the 
lapse  of  forty  years  it  is  proven  to  have  been  a  very  conservative  state- 
ment of  the  case.  They  underestimated  the  ruin  of  the  agriculturists 
which  followed. 

So  long  as  protection  lasted  the  agricultural  interests  of  England  had 
kept  pace  with  the  constantly  increasing  population.  Up  to  1846  the 
English  farmers  had  supplied  the  home  markets  with  the  produce  of  their 
farms,  in  exchange  for  clothing,  implements  and  wares  of  the  English 
factories.  By  this  interchange  of  commodities  which  was  carried  on,  the 
rural  population  sustaining  the  cities,  and  the  cities  contributing  to  the 
prosperity  of  the  agriculturists,  for  more  than  two  centuries  a  flourishing 
and  steadily  improving  condition  had  been  maintained.  The  advantages 
of  this  policy  to  a  country  were  fully  demonstrated  by  the  long  experience 
of  the  English  people.  The  valuable  home  market  which  so  long  had 
been  maintained  for  manufacturing  centres  was  not  appreciated  by  the 
commercial  classes  until  recently,  when  they  have  been  able  definitely  to 
measure  their  own  losses  by  the  gradual  decay  and  disappearance  of  the 
rural  population.  The  experience  of  the  English  people  in  dealing  with 
this  important  branch  of  production  furnishes  one  of  the  most  striking 
examples  of  the  folly  of  free  trade.  From  the  removal  of  protection  to 
agriculture  in  1849,  year  by  year  until  the  present  time,  the  imports  of 
farm  products  have  increa.sed.  The  agricultural  population  has  steadily 
decreased,  until  the  tenant  farmers  are  almost  wholly  driven  out  of  the 
country,  and  the  land  is  being  cultivated  by  common  laborers,  who  live  in 
the  most  miserable  hovels,  relying  for  subsistence  on  meagre  earnings  and 
public  charities.  Land  has  so  depreciated  in  value  that,  in  many  cases, 
the  poorer  soil  will  not  rent  for  enough  to  pay  the  tax  rate.  All  improve- 
ment has  ceased,  and  the  country  is  fast  approaching  the  condition 
pictured  by  Mrs.  Trollope  in  her  "Life  of  Michael  Armstrong."  The 
merchants  in  the  country  villages,  carpenters,  blacksmiths,  bricklayers, 
stone-masons,  and  in  fact  the  whole  rural  popiilation,  have  suffered 
loss  by  the  injuries  which  have  been  inflicted  upon  the  farmers.  As 
land  passed  out  of  cultivation,  as  improvements  cea.sed,  as  profits 
were  destroyed,  and  the  spendable  income  of  the  cultivators  of  the  soil 
was  cut  down,  an  immeasurable  injury  was  inflicted  upon  the  whole 
country. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

In  1836,  while  protection  prevailed,  the  imports  of  farm  products  for 
home  consumption  amounted  to  only  $4,243,225.  After  the  adoption  of 
free  trade  in  1846,  they  increased  to  $219,592,085  in  i860,  continuing 
until  by  1890,  there  were  brought  into  the  United  Kingdom  from  foreign 
countries  and  consumed  there  the  enormous  sum  of  $599,728,940.  Nearly 
every  dollar  in  value  of  the  products  included  in  these  figures  might, 
under  protection,  have  been  produced  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and  would 
have  given  employment  and  support  to  a  vast  population. 

The  imports  of  wheat  alone  increased  in  value  from  $43,454,340  in 
1859,  to  $150,338,265  in  1880.  A  greater  quantity  imported  in  1890, 
was  of  the  value  of  $117,250,550.  To  this  should  be  added  the  imports 
of  flour  of  $11,908,990  in  1859,  and  $44,883,080  in  1890. 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  acres  planted  with  wheat 
in  the  United  Kingdom  during  periods  of  five  years,  and  the  number  of 
people  supported  on  home-grown  wheat  from  1855  to  1859,  and  from  1885 
to  1889.  It  discloses  the  fact  that  1,679,618  acres  had  gone  out  of  wheat 
cultivation  and  10,500,000  fewer  people  were  consuming  home-grown 
wheat  than  at  the  time  when  free  trade  was  adopted.  If  the  same  number 
of  acres  were  cultivated  now  as  in  1855,  it  would  feed  22,000,000  of  peo- 
ple, whereas  only  12,000,000  are  being  fed  on  domestic  wheat. 

Average  area  iu  Number  of  persous 

Quinquennial  period.  wheat  acres.  supplied. 

1S55   to    1859 4,128,972  22,500,CXX> 

1885  to  1889, 2,449,354  12,000,000 

Decreased, 1,679,618        Decreased,     10,500,000 

From  1841  to  1849,  out  of  a  population  in  Great  Britain  of  19,592,824, 
17,004, 118  were  fed  on  home-grown  wheat,  and  2,588,706  on  imported 
wheat,  as  estimated  by  Mr.  Porter. 

The  home-grown  wheat  compared  with  the  consumption  imported, 
given  iu  quarters  iu  1845  and  1887,  was  as  follows: 

AVERAGE  FOR  THREE  YEARS. 

1845.  1887. 

Quarters.  Quarters. 

Home-grown, 16,203,571  7,982,740 

Import  of  foreign,  less  export, 1,103,346  16,319,706 

17,306,917  24,302,446 

Population, 28,300,094  37. 09'. 564 

Per  head, 279  lbs.  314  lbs. 

The  decrease  in  the  cultivated  area  continues  steadily  year  by  year, 
as  shown  by  the  Statistical  Abstract  of  Great  Britain,  comparing  1882  with 
1892.  The  number  of  acres  cultivated  in  the  several  crops  named,  were 
as  follows: 


FBEE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


Grains. 

1SS2.  1S92. 

Wheat, 3,003,960  2,219,839 

Barley,       2,255,269  2,036,810 

Oats,. 2,833,865  2,997,545 

Rye,              56,553  4S,  103 

Beans, 436,882  311.31° 

Peas 246,851  194,424 

Total, 8,833,380  7.808,031 

Decrease  in  ten  years, 1,025,349 

In  1895,  as  shown  by  the  agricultural  returns,  the  acreage  of  wheat 
was  1,417,641,  a  decrease  from  1892  of  802,198  acres. 

Green  Crops. 

Potatoes 541,064  525,361 

Turnips  and  swedes, 2,024,326  1,937,163 

Mangolds, 333,645  361,235 

Cabbage,  kohl,  rabi  or  rape, i49,94i  150,992 

Vetches  or  tares, 265,857  198,678 

Other  green  crops  except  clover  and  grass,  .  160,827  96,148 

Total, 3,475,660  3,269,570 

Decrease  in  ten  years, 106,090  acres. 

Permanent  pasture, 14,821,675  16,358,150 

Increase  in  ten  years, 1,536,475  acres. 

The  increase  in  permanent  pasture  has  been  made  without  an  increase 
in  stock-raising  which  would  make  such  change  necessary.  The  land 
thrown  out  of  cultivation  is  put  down  in  the  Abstract  under  the  head 
of  "permanent  pasture,"  when  in  fact  it  is  simply  adding  year  by  year 
acres  to  waste  land.  The  acres  which  have  gone  out  of  cultivation  furnish 
only  slight  evidence  of  the  decline  of  the  industry.  The  system  of  free 
imports  has  made  farming  so  unprofitable  that  land-owners  have  ceased  to 
make  improvements.  The  soil  is  running  out  and  in  many  localities 
becoming  unproductive.  Instead  of  free  trade's  acting  as  a  stimulus  and 
compelling  the  adoption  of  better  methods  of  cultivation,  it  has  acted  as 
a  blight  and  hindrance  to  improvements.  The  cultivators  of  the  soil  can- 
not afford  to  invest  money  in  machinery  and  labor,  for  the  purpose  of 
competing  with  other  countries. 

It  is  only  nece.ssary  in  this  connection  to  point  out  some  of  the  prin- 
cipal imports  of  agricultural  produce  which  have  brought  about  this  con- 
dition. The  imports  of  barley,  oats,  rye,  peas,  beans,  buckwheat'and  maize 
added  to  those  of  wheat  bring  the  total  imports  of  grains  in  1 890  up  to 
$219,075,260.  The  reader  should  study  carefully  Table  No.  12  of  the 
imports  of  agricultural  products  for  home  consumption  into  the  United 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Kingdom  in  1890,  in  order  to  appreciate  fully  their  magnitude  and 
variety.     Of  dairy  products  the  imports  were  as  follows: 

Butter  in  1846,  amounted  to  only  $1,863,635.  By  1890,  butter, 
including  margarine,  had  reached  $66,563,400.  The  imports  of  cheese 
during  the  same  period  had  increased  from  $2,533,805  to  $23,996,635. 
The  above  statements  relate  to  the  imports  for  home  consumption.  No 
reshipments  are  included  in  the  figures  given.  It  would  be  out  of  place 
in  this  connection  to  attempt  to  enumerate  the  articles  contained  in  the 
table  referred  to.  The  facts  presented  by  it  account  for  the  disasters 
which  have  overtaken  the  tenant  farmers  of  the  country,  and  undermined, 
and  in  a  great  part  ruined  what  at  one  time  was  a  very  important 
industry. 

The  increase  of  imports  caused  a  decrease  in  the  cultivated  area, 
which  resulted  in  a  decrease  iu  the  employment  of  labor,  and  a  diminu- 
tion in  the  agricultural  population.  The  Minority  Report  of  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Depression  of  Trade  in  1886,  contained  a  table  showing  the 
percentage  of  the  whole  population  employed  in  agriculture,  taken  from 
the  census  figuresof  1851,  1861,  1871  and  1881.  The  decline  was  gradual 
and  steady,  and  had  reached  the  following  point  in  18S1 : 


Population. 

1851. 
Employed  in  Agriculture. 

Population. 

1881. 
Employed  in  Agriculture 

Bnlgand  and  Wales,  . 

Scotland 

Ireland, 

17,927,609 
2,888,742 
6,552..l85 

20.9  per  ct.  or  3,746.868 

22.7     ;  ;;     655,744 
48.4              3.171.354 

26,061,736 
3.745.485 
5.144,983 

11.5  per  ct.  or  2,997,100 

Total, 

27,368,738 

7.573,966 

34,952,204 

In  1881,  5,643.547 

Total  decrease  in  num 

ber  of  persons  employed  in  agriculture  from  1851  to  1881, 1,930,419 

7,573.9661 

The  agricultural  population  of  England  and  Wales,  as  shown  by  the 
census  of  1891,  was  less  than  1,518,914,  or  5.25  per  cent  of  the  whole 
population.  Mr.  Arnold  White  in  "The  Destitute  Alien,"  says, 
"With  our  existing  population  of  29,000,000,  the  proportion  (of  the  agri- 
cultural class)  is  only  one  in  every  nineteen. ' '  The  Fifth  and  Final  Report 
of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor,'  shows  that  the  number  of  agricul- 
tural laborers  in  England  a:nd Wales  in  1891  had  decreased  20  percent  in 
twenty  years;  that  the  decrease  in  Scotland  was  nearly  27  and  in  Ireland 
45  per  cent  during  the  same  period,  and  that  in  1891,  of  the  total  number 
of  persons  over  ten  years  of  age  engaged  in  agriculture  in  England  and 
Wales,  nearly  three-fourths  or  73.  i  per  cent  were  common  laborers.  In 
Scotland,  this  class  con.stituted  62.5  per  cent  and  in  Ireland  30. 7  per  cent. 

'  Minority  Report  of  Roy.il  Commission  on  Depression  of  Trade,  binal  Rep.,  Royal  Com  on 
Trade  and  Industries,  p.  70.        2  part  I.,  pages  201*3.  of  June,  1S94. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


The  decrease  in  the  rural  population  has  been  going  on,  while  there  has 
been  an  increase  in  the  whole  population  of  the  kingdom. 

More  specific  results  which  have  followed  the  adoption  of  free  trade, 
are  very  fully  set  forth  in  the  evidence  given  before  the  Royal  Commission 
on  Depression  of  Trade  in  1885.  Sir  James  Caird,  K.  C.  B.,  senior  land 
commissioner  of  England,  was  examined  and  gave  evidence  as  follows: 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  inquiry  into  the  loss  sustained  in  recent  years  by  land- 
owners and  farmers  in  this  country,  and  as  to  how  such  loss  may  have  influenced 
the  general  depression  of  trade?  A.  I  have,  and  I  may  state  that  those  inquiries 
have  extended  over  Great  Britain  with  the  exception  of  some  few  counties.  Begin- 
ning with  Northumberland  and  the  adjoining  counties,  and  part  of  the  borders  of 
Scotland,  the  answer  is,  that  on  the  farms  which  are  chiefly  arable  the  landlords' 
loss  of  spendable  income  is  40  per  cent.  The  spendable  income,  as  I  would  define 
it,  would  be  what  was  left  after  meeting  the  usual  charges  upon  the  estate,  and 
therefore,  an)'  reduction  of  rent,  or  other  loss  of  rent,  would  mean  a  diminution  of 
the  spendable  income.  First,  40  per  cent  loss  on  farms,  which  are  chiefly  arable ; 
secondly,  upon  farms  which  are  half  pasture  and  half  arable,  30  per  cent.  On  hill 
farms,  where  it  is  all  moor  or  grass,  20  per  cent,  that  is  with  regard  to  landlords. 
With  regard  to  the  tenant,  in  the  first  case,  that  is  chiefly  arable  farms,  capital  ordi- 
narily lost,  and  no  income  as  a  matter  of  fact  from  the  farm.  On  the  first  class  the 
chiefly  arable  farms,  the  tenants'  loss  is  40  percent;  on  the  second  class,  25  per  cent; 
and  very  little  income;  and  on  the  third  class,  10  per  cent,  and  very  little  income. 
With  regard  to  wages,  they  have  fallen  15  per  cent  from  what  they  were  ten  years 
ago,  to  something  like  what  they  were  at  the  beginning  of  the  twenty  years  to  which 
we  have  been  referring. 

The  rates  (taxes),  have  increased,  especially  on  the  present  reduced  letting  value, 
that  is  to  say,  if  you  were  dealing  with  a  farm  yielding  ;^5oo  a  year  formerly,  and 
it  is  now  only  worth  .^300,  of  course  if  the  rates  remained  the  same  over  the  whole 
district,  they  must  press  more  heavily  on  the  ^300  than  on  the  .2^500.  The  rates  are 
higher  in  proportion  to  the  rent. 

The  next  county  is  Durham  and  North  Riding,  of  Yorkshire ;  the  loss  of  the 
landlord's  spendable  income  is  put  down  at  25  per  cent;  the  tenants  show  30  per 
cent  of  spendable  income.  With  regard  to  wages,  there  has  been  10  per  cent  reduc- 
tion. 

In  the  counties  of  Yorkshire  and  Durham,  the  landlords  have  30  per  cent  reduc- 
tion, and  the  tenants  50  per  cent  reduction,  and  wages  have  been  reduced  10  per  cent. 

In  Staffordshire  and  Shropshire,  the  landlords  have  lost  25  per  cent  from  the 
reduction  of  rent  and  expenditure  to  assist  the  tenants,  and  expenditure  beyond  the 
usual  expenditure  on  the  estate,  and  the  tenants  have  lost  40  per  cent.  The  land- 
lords have  had  33  per  cent,  and  the  tenants  75  per  cent  reduction  in  spendable 
income.  With  regard  to  wages,  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent  has  been  made,  and  a 
further  fall  of  5  per  cent  is  expected. 

Now  coming  to  part  of  Yorkshire,  Lincolnshire,  Bradfordshire,  Cambridgeshire, 
Leicestershire,  Nottinghamshire  and  Northamptonshire,  the  landlords'  spendable 
income  has  diminished  fully  30  per  cent,  and  the  tenants'  capital  from  20  to  60  per 
cent.  The  tenants'  capital  throughout  the  country  has  been  reduced  in  ten  years 
in  Great  Britain  by  jfSl, 000,000  (1405,000,000),  and  their  spendable  income  by 
;fi7,59o,ooo()f87, 900,000).  Wages  have  fallen  in  the  last  two  years  from  10  to  20 
per  cent. 

In  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Cambridge  and  Huntington,  and  what  are  called  the  High- 
lands, which  means  really  rising  pieces  of  ground  in  the  fens,  which   were   islands 


cultutf  iti 
England. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


in  the  ancient  times  and  are  now  called  Highlands,  the  landlords  have  dimin- 
ished in  income  40  per  cent  in  the  fens,  and  33  per  cent  in  the  Highlands.  The 
tenants  have  scarcely  any  profits.  The  expenditure  is  largely  reduced  in  order  to  keep 
up  their  working  power.  Seven  farms  of  2200  acres  in  the  fens  in  four  parishes,  let 
at  a  reduction  of  47  per  cent  from  that  of  ten  years  ago.  A  farm  of  1000  acres, 
which  then  let  for  /750,  does  not  now  yield  the  landlord  as  much  as  he  paid  iu  rates 
and  taxes,  and  farms  have  fallen  into  the  landlords'  hands  which  have  produced 
neither  rent  nor  interest.  Farms  are  ' '  flogged, ' '  which  means  that  they  are  very 
much  run  out.     Their  working  stock  is  reduced  and  not  renewed. 

In  Hertfordshire  the  landlords  have  had  25  per  cent  reduction,  and  the  tenants' 
capital  is  40,  50,  60  and  even  100  per  cent  less. 

In  York,  Lincoln,  Norfolk,  Leicester,  Warwick,  Northampton,  Bucks,  Oxford  and 
Surrey,  the  spendable  power  of  the  landlords  has  been  reduced  40  per  cent  on  the 
average;  the  tenants  have  lost  largely  of  their  capital  and  they  have  no  profits;  and 
their  spending  power  is  not  half  what  it  was  ten  years  ago,  and  is  taken,  most  of 
it,  out  of  capital.  Wages  have  fallen  from  15  to  20  per  cent  below  what  they  were 
five  years  ago. 

In  Kent  and  Sussex  the  loss  of  spendable  income  to  landlords  is  put  down  at  25 
per  cent,  and  the  tenants  no  profits.  All  the  trade  in  the  country  towns  is  in  great 
depression  from  the  impoverished  state  of  landlord,  tenant  and  laborer. 

In  Cumberland,  Westmoreland,  North  Lancashire,  West  Northumberland  and 
the  borders  of  Scotland,  after  the  drop  in  prices  last  year,  the  rents  could  not  be 
made,  and  the  landlords  have  abated  from  10  to  20  per  cent.  The  tenants  rather 
holding  on,  than  selling  out  at  the  great  sacrifice  of  the  present  crisis.  But  if  no 
improvement  in  price  takes  place  we  have  not  seen  the  worst.  The  poorer  class  of 
arable  lands  will  not  pay  for  cultivation,  and  this  kind  of  land  not  being  favorable 
to  grass,  there  is  a  great  loss  of  produce.  The  wages  of  men  and  boys  have  fallen 
from  20  to  30  per  cent. 

In  Shropshire,  Staffordshire,  Hertfordshire,  Montgomery,,  Worcester,  Warwick, 
the  landlords'  loss  of  spendable  income  from  reduction  of  rent  is  25  per  cent,  and 
the  diminished  value  of  timber  for  sale,  and  the  increased  expenditure  on  drainage, 
etc.,  10  per  cent,  making  together  a  loss  of  spendable  income  by  landlords  of  35 
per  cent,  and  the  tenants'  income  has  been  diminished  50  per  cent.  The  wages  of 
the  laborers  have  been  reduced  from  7  to  10  per  cent,  and  the  farmers  employ  less  labor. 

In  Gloucestershire  and  the  neighboring  counties,  the  landlords  have  had  25 
per  cent  reduction  of  rent,  and  the  tenants  50  per  cent  diminished  income,  and  the 
wages  are  lower  by  from  10  to  12  per  cent. 

Now  coming  to  Somerset,  Devon,  Cornwall  and  Dorset,  the  loss  to  landlords  in 
the  north  and  west  of  Dartmoor,  on  the  poorer  land,  is  from  25  to  30  per  cent,  on 
the  better  land,  on  the  south  and  east  of  Dartmoor,  from  15  to  20  per  cent,  and 
the  tenants  are  living  on  their  capital  on  the  poorer  land,  while  there  is  30  to  50 
per  cent  less  than  the  usual  expenditure  by  the  tenants  on  the  richer  land.  Wages 
have  not  fallen  until  two  years  ago,  and  then  the  fall  was  10  per  cent,  but  labor  is 
less  employed  and  farms  show  this  in  reduced  condition. 

Taking  the  evidence  as  far  as  I  have  given  it,  it  embraces  nearly  the  whole  of 
England. 

With  regard  to  Scotland,  taking  the  whole  of  the  northern  counties  from  Aber- 
deen northwest,  the  landlords'  loss  is  put  down  at  30  per  cent,  and  the  tenants'  at 
more  than  30  per  cent.     With  regard  to  wages,  they  have  fallen  10  per  cent. 

In  Perthshire,  Forfar  and  Fife,  the  landlords  have  lost  from  25  to  33  per  cent, 
which  is  increased  to  50  and  60  per  cent  by  the  large  demand  for  improvements. 
Their  power  of  spending  is  reduced  by  from  50  to  60  per  cent,  and  the  tenants  have 
lost  the  whole  of  their  spendable  income. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


In  Dumfries,  Midlothian  and  Argyle,  and  the  western  and  southwestern  coun- 
ties, the  landlords  have  less  spendable  income  by  from  20  to  30,  to  35  per  cent,  and 
the  tenants  have  lost  all  their  spendable  income.  Their  power  to  spend  is  lessened 
by  one-half.  There  has  not  been  much  reduction  in  agricultural  wages;  but  in  the 
case  of  masons,  joiners,  etc.,  they  are  25  per  cent  down. 

The  present  as  compared  with  ten  years  ago  as  deduced  by  me  from  those  figures 
Which  I  have  already  given,  would  show  on  an  average  that  the  landlords  have  lost 
30  per  cent,  the  tenants  60  per  cent,  and  the  laborers  10  per  cent.  And  putting 
that  into  figures  it  brings  out  that  on  ^£'65,000,000  of  the  rental  of  the  United  King- 
dom, the  landlords'  loss  of  30  per  cent  would  be  equal  tp  about  ^"20,000,000  (jfioo, - 
000,000) ;  and  the  tenants'  60  per  cent,  inasmuch  as  their  income  may  be  taken  -at 
half  the  rental,  would  be  just  the  same,  that  is  to  say,  60  per  cent,  or  half  the 
rental,  is  also  ^20,000,000  (|  100, 000, 000).  With  regard  to  the  laborers,  there  was  a 
difficulty  in  estimating  the  amount  of  reduction.' 

The  estimate  made  by  Mr.  Caird,  "bringsout"  the  income  "for  labor 
at  ^28,000,000,  and  10  per  cent  reduction  upon  that  would  be  ^'2,800,000 
($14,000,000),  and  the  total  loss  to  the  landed  interest  in  spendable  income 
for  the  last  year  comes  out  in  that  way  to  ;^42, 800,000  ($214,000,000). 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  compare  the  amount  of  the  home  and  the  foreign  supply  of 
wheat  soon  after  the  commencement  of  the  free  trade  system,  with  what  it  has 
become  in  recent  years?  A.  In  1852,  after  the  commencement  of  free  trade  and  the 
conclusion  of  the  potato  famine  in  Ireland,  and  when  the  gold  discoveries  in  Cali- 
fornia and  Australia  had  been  made,  the  produce  of  wheat  in  the  United  Kingdom 
was  69,000,000  cwt.,  and  of  foreign  imports  18,000,000  cwt.  ,and  that  showed  a  supply 
per  head  of  the  population  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  that  date  of  348  pounds.  That  is 
for  the  whole  of  the  United  Kingdom.  In  1S83,  which  was  the  year  of  our  largest 
import  of  wheat,  the  production  of  wheat  in  the  United  Kingdom  had  fallen  from 
69,000,000  cwt.,  to  39, 500, 000  cwt. ,  and  the  foreign  had  increased  from  18,000,000 
cwt.,  to  84,000,000  cwt.,  making  (a  total  consumption)  of  87,000,000  cwt.  in  1852, 
and  124,000,000  cwt.  in  18S3,  and  the  proportion  per  head  of  the  population  in  1883 
was  400  pounds  instead  of  348  pounds.  Then  in  18S5  the  home  production  of  wheat 
has  still  further  fallen  to  37,500,000  cwt.,  and  the  foreign  imports  had  somewhat 
fallen  from  what  they  were  in  1883,  but  still  were  80,000,000  cwt.,  making  a  total 
consumption  of  117,000,000  cwt.,  and  a  supply  per  head  of  the  population  of  364 
pounds. 

Compared  with  the  whole  value  of  the  wheat  crop  in  1874,  which  was  an  average 
wheat  crop,  and  at  the  average  price  of  the  preceding  twenty-five  years  since  the  intro- 
duction of  free  trade,  during  which  time  the  average  was  6.f.  ()d.  a  bushel,  the  farmers' 
loss  in  quantity  and  quality,  and  price  in  the  ten  following  years,  eight  of  which 
were  bad  seasons,  works  out  ^fiyi, 000,000  (1855,000,000),  or  ^17,000,000  a  year  on 
the  average  (or  185,500,000).  There  has  been  some  compensation  for  this,  in  addi- 
tion to  other  stock  and  crops,  namely:  there  have  been  100,000  acres  more  barley 
and  oats,  worth  /8oo,ooo,  and  936  more  cattle,  worth  ;^I2  each,  ;fii,232,ooo;  but 
the  reduction  of  3, 100,000  sheep  at  30.S.,  diminishes  the  gain  by  ^4,650,000,  making 
altogether  a  gain  of  ^^7, 382, 000  to  be  deducted  from  the  loss  annually  on  wheat  of 
/17, 100,000,  showing  a  net  loss  to  the  farmers  on  the  wheat  crop  alone  in  these  ten 
yeais  of  ^97, 100,000  (1485,500,000). 

Q.  Can  you  form  any  average  of  what  the  consumption  per  head  of  the  popula- 
tion is?  A.  It  has  been  generally  taken  at  nearly  six  bushels  per  head,  which 
would  be  from  340  to  360  pounds. 

'  Royal  Commission,  Second  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  293. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Mr.  McCulIoch,  an  eminent  authority,  estimated  the  consumption 
per  head  of  wheat  before  1S50  and  1851,  at  eight  bushels  per  head  of 
population.  The  estimate  of  Mr.  Porter  was,  from  six  to  eight  bushels. 
It  is  a  common  trick  of  free  trade  statisticians  to  assume  a  large  increase 
in  the  consumption  of  wheat  per  head  of  the  population,  from  the  in- 
creased imports,  leaving  entirely  out  of  their  calculation,  the  decline  in 
the  home  production;  and  attempting  thereby,  to  make  it  appear  that 
there  has  been  an  increase  in  consumption  per  capita,  thus  showing  an 
improved  condition  of  tlie  English  people. 

Joseph  Martin,  tenant  farmer  in  the  Isle  of  Ely,  in  the  Fen  District, 
was  examined  and  said : 

I  hold  2, 300  acres,  500  of  which  are  my  owu.  It  is  impossible  to  say  what  have 
been  the  losses  to  the  farming  interests  during  the  last  eight  years.  The  tenant 
suffered  the  most  severely  in  the  years  of  1S7S-81 ;  many  were  totally  ruined,  others 
crippled  for  life,  all  more  or  less  experienced  heavy  losses,  and  it  certainly  short- 
ened the  days  of  several.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  caused  three  of  my  neighbors  in 
the  parish  to  commit  suicide.  During  the  last  three  or  four  years  the  landlords 
have  made  great  reductions,  even  under  the  existence  of  leases,  varying  from  10  to 
30  per  cent,  and  frequently  have  only  received  the  rent  by  instalments.  I  have 
known  several  instances  in  which  receipts  have  been  given  in  full  for  the  year's 
rent,  when  no  rent  has  been  paid,  considering  it  wi.ser  to  keep  a  tenant  without 
rent  than  have  the  land  on  hand.  In  this  parish,  consisting  of  17,000  acres,  I  con- 
sider the  loss  to  the  landlords  alone  in  shape  of  rent  is  20.y.per  acre.  In  the  year  1874 
the  Earl  of  Hardwick  had  a  sale,  at  which  a  piece  of  land  was  sold  for  /600,  and 
a  little  more  than  five  years  since  that  land  was  resold  for  ..^300.  My  father  sold  a 
farm  to  the  late  Archbishop  Musgrove,  about  twenty-five  years  ago,  at  £22,  an  acre, 
and  last  year  it  was  sold  for  .,^5  an  acre.  I  also  have  a  statement  of  a  farm  of  three 
hundred  acres  near  Ely,  which  one  family  had  had  in  their  possession  since  1S23. 
A  few  years  since  ;^i6,ooo  was  offered  for  the  property;  for  family  purposes,  how- 
ever, it  was  mortgaged  to  the  extent  of  ^9,000.  A  few  years  ago  it  was  sold  for  the 
sum  of  ;C5.2oo  and  that  was  all  that  could  be  realized.  There  is  an  estate  belong- 
ing to  my  sister  which  was  let  at  30^.  an  acre  in  the  year  of  1857.  The  lease  expired 
in  18S2;  we  could  not  let  it  except  at  \os.  an  acre  and  even  then  could  not  let  one 
farm  and  I  have  them  all  on  hand  now.  I  could  tell  you  of  innumerable  instances 
here,  farms  formerly  let  at  about  2,0s.  have  now  come  down  to  15^.  and  los.  One 
farm  that  my  father  had  for  fifty  years  and  after  his  death  I  gave  305.  an  acre  for, 
is  now  let  at  16.J.  an  acre  and  good  land  too;  there  are  thousands  of  acres  which  the 
landlords  are  occupying  because  they  cannot  let  them. ' 

John  Coleman,  manager  of  estates,  was  examined  and  said: 
The  enormous    increase  in  the   number  of    bankruptcies  and  settlements  with 
creditors   is  quite  sufficient  evidence.     Many  more  are  hanging  on  whilst  anything 
remains,  taking  all  they  can  out  of  the  land,  and  living  to  a  large  extent  upon  what 
should  be  the  landlord's  capital,  namely,  the  resources  of  the  soil.' 

S.  B.  L.  Dru.se,  chancery  barri.ster  and  .secretary  of  the  F'armers'  Club, 
was  examined  and  said:  ' 

Then  only  the  other  day  at  the  Fanners'  Club  we   had  a  paper  read  ou   farm 
machinery,  and  the  writer  of  that  paper,  an  agricultural  engineer,  said  "There  has 
'  Royal  Commission,  Third  Report,  p.  48.       =  la.,  p.  52.       3  id.,  p.  64. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


recently  been  a  marked  want  of  purchasing  power  in  the  agricultural  world  wl 
has  had  a  serious  influence  for  the  worse  on  agricultural  engineering.  In  fact,  the 
British  farmer  has  had  so  little  money  to  spend  in  purchasing  new  and  reinstating 
old  machinery  that  the  home  trade  has  practically  gone  to  the  dogs,  and  of  late 
years  the  English  engineers  have  had  to  look  to  foreign  countries  for  their  custom 
ers. "  There  are  individual  cases  of  local  traders  in  villages  and  small  towns 
within  my  own  knowledge,  who  have  been  absolutely  obliged  to  give  up  their  busi 
ness  entirely  through  the  depression.  The  local  trades  people,  more  especially  those 
in  large  towns,  as  well  as  blacksmiths,  wheelwrights  and  others,  in  the  villages 
whose  principal  customers  were  the  farmers,  had  also  suffered  losses.  The  small  village 
shopkeepers,  whose  principal  customers  were  the  laborers,  had  not  suffered  so  much 
Then  again,  clergymen  have  suffered  very  much,  especially  clergj-men  whose 
incomes  were  derived  from  glebes.  Of  course,  if  a  clerg>-man  has  his  income 
largely  curtailed  in  that  way,  his  expenditures  would  also  be  curtailed. 

William  J.  Harris,  farmer  in  Devonshire,  was  examined  and  said : 
I  have  valued  the  produce  of  the  farms  of  England  and  Wales.  I  do  not 
include  Ireland  and  Scotland,  because  I  have  only  valued  Ireland  quite  recently, 
and  Scotland  I  have  not  yet  finished.  I  have  valued  this  produce  on  different  con- 
ditions altogether  from  the  valuations  made  by  Sir  James  Caird  and  others,  and  I 
find  that  the  produce  of  England  and  Wales  at  the  current  values  of  the  past  year 
amount  to  ^120,000,000  sterling.  My  letter  in  the  Economist  newspaper  on  the 
eighth  of  August,  last  year,  will  show  to  the  members  of  this  Commission  exactly  how 
the  valuation  was  made.  I  should  reduce  this  valuation  to  ^75,000,000  if  tillage 
farming  had  in  most  part  to  be  abandoned,  Q.  That  is  at  the  present  prices?  A. 
Yes,  at  the  present  prices.  I  do  not  look  for  any  advance.  Q.  What  should  you 
say  was  the  difference  in  value  between  the  food  produced  in  this  country  fifteen 
years  ago  and  now?  A.  I  calculated  that  there  was  about  ^{^40, 000, 000  worth  more 
food  produced  in  England  and  Wales  alone  from  twelve  to  fifteen  years  ago,  com- 
pared with  what  there  is  at  the  present  time.  I  happened  to  have  read  Sir  James 
Caird's  evidence,  and  I  see  he  puts  the  decrease  at  ^^42, Soo, 000,  compared  with  ten 
years  ago.  His  valuation  is  really  of  the  produce  of  the  United  Kingdom;  in  my 
valuation  the  difference  would  be  rather  more  than  Sir  James  Caird's. 

Q.  Do  you  consider  that  the  depression  in  trade  which  is  now  said  to  exist  is 
largely  dependent  upon  this  decrease  in  the  value  of  our  agricultural  productions? 
A.  Very  largely.  I  believe  that  the  production  of  ^£'50, 000, 000  sterling  from  our 
own  soil  is  equal  in  importance  to  the  working  classes  to  the  export  of  ;f8o,ooo,ooo 
sterling  worth  of  manufactures  to  foreign  countries. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  commission  in  what  way  you  make  out  this  estimate?  A. 
I  consider  that  an  export  of  ;^8o,  000, 000  worth  of  manufactured  goods  would  require 
an  import  of  more  than  ^^30, 000, 000  worth  of  raw  material  on  the  average,  and 
would,  therefore,  only  leave  ^^50,000,000  to  the  benefit  of  this  country,  whereas  the 
production  of  ,^50,000,000  worth  more  food  in  this  country  would  lead  to  the  pro- 
ceeds being  spent  in  the  country,  and  would,  therefore,  be  equivalent  to  the  other  sum. ' 

In  estimating  the  effect  of  free  trade  on  the  country  the  decline  in 
the  value  of  land  should  be  taken  into  consideration  as  well  as  the  loss 
of  profits  and  incomes.  The  following  brief  extract  from  the  Fair  Trade 
Journal  shows  the  loss  sustained  by  the  nation  in  this  respect : 

According  to  statistics  published  by  Mr.  Giflen,  the   capital   value  of  the  land 
in  the  United    Kingdom  is  1691  millions  sterling.     This   appears    to    be   only  its 
'  Royal  Commission,  Third  Report,  p.  81. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


agricultural  value,  productions  other  than  from  the  surface  iucreasiug  the  capital  value 
considerably.  In  1882  lands  were  valued  at  1880  millious,  so  this  shows  a  decrease 
of  189  millions  occasioned  by  the  ruinous  competition  with  foreign  countries  in  the 
grain  supply,  reduction  of  rents,  unoccupied  farms,  and  the  increase  of  area  laid 
down  in  grass  for  stock-raising  purposes,  which  was  formerly  used  for  cereals,  now 
imported  and  also  at  prices  which  would  not  compensate  the  British  farmer  for  his 
outlay. ' 

"In  proportion  as  a  greater  share  of  the  capital  of  any  country  is 
emfiloyed  in  agriculture,  the  greater  will  be  the  quantity  of  productive 
labor  which  it  puts  into  motion  within  a  countrj'.  The  capital  which 
is  employed  in  the  trade  of  exportation  has  the  least  effect  of  any. ' '  '^ 
Stating  it  in  another  form,  it  may  be  said,  in  proportion  as  the  capital 
of  a  country  is  withdrawn  from  employment  in  agriculture  the  quantity 
of  productive  labor  put  in  motion  will  be  diminished.  It  has  been 
universally  recognized  that  agriculture  affords  the  best  means  of  support 
and  subsistence  and  is  the  most  essential  of  all  industries.  From  the 
earliest  time  the  application  of  labor  to  land  has  formed  the  basis  of  pro- 
duction. A  policy  which  had  for  its  definite  purpose  the  destruction  of 
an  industry  so  vast  and  important,  could  only  operate  to  undermine  the 
very  basis  of  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  country.  The  experience 
of  the  English  people  during  the  past  forty  years  has  demonstrated  the 
advantages  of  agriculture,  even  in  a  country  densely  populated  and  in 
which  tillage  is  carried  on  at  greater  expense  than  in  foreign  countries, 
having  the  advantage  of  new  virgin  soils.  The  early  expressions  of  Mr. 
Gladstone,  especially  in  the  speech  addressed  to  the  Agricultural  Society 
of  Chester  in  1858,  shows  that  he  gave  assent  to  the  free  trade  policy 
without  correctly  measuring  its  results.  He  said,  "Whatever  else  may 
come  and  go,  this  at  least  we  know,  that  no  vicissitude  of  time  or  change 
can  displace  agriculture  from  the  position  it  has  ever  held,  and  ever  must 
hold,  from  the  very  first  state  of  the  generations  of  man  until  the  last  day 
of  the  crack  of  doom  itself. ' ' 

Mr.  Gladstone  spoke  at  a  time  when  agriculture  in  England  was 
brought  to  such  a  degree  of  perfection  that  the  well  cultivated  fields  and 
gardens  attracted  general  attention.  Ralph  Waldo  E^merson  gave  the 
following  glowing  description  of  rural  England  upon  his  visit  to  that 
country  about  18.50: 

England  is  a  garden.  Under  an  ash-colored  sky  the  fields  have  been  combed 
and  rolled  till  they  appear  to  have  been  finished  with  a  pencil  instead  of  a  plough. 
The  solidity  of  the  structures  that  compose  the  towns  speaks  the  indu.stry  of  ages. 
Nothing  is  left  as  it  is  made.  Rivers,  hills,  valleys,  the  sea  itself,  feel  the  hand  of 
a  master.  The  long  habitation  of  a  powerful  and  ingenious  race  has  turned  every 
rood  of  land  to  its  best  u.se,  has  found  all  the  capabilities,  the  arable  soil,  the  quarry 
of  the  rocks,  the  highways,  the  by-ways,  the  fords,  the  navigable  waters,  and  the 
new  arts  of  intercourse  meet  you  everywhere;  so  that  England  is  a  huge  phalanstery, 
where  all  that  man  wants  is  provided  within  the  precincts. 

1  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  590.       •  Adam  Smitli's  "  Wealth  of  Nations,"  Book  II,  chap.  5. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


What  a  contrast  is  presented  by  Sir  James  Caird  and  the  other 
witnesses  before  the  Royal  Commission.  In  less  than  forty  years  of  free 
trade  millions  of  acres  have  gone  out  of  cultivation.  The  land  is  half 
and  poorly  tilled  and  "is  fast  degenerating  into  prairie,  while  the  power- 
ful and  ingenious  race  of  husbandmen  have  been  turned  into  unskilled 
and  starving  drudges  in  the  towns,  or  paupers  in  the  work-house."  The 
sturdy  yeomanry,  from  which  England's  armies  were  recruited  and  which 
so  long  formed  the  pride  and  stability  of  the  realm,  have  either  been 
reduced  to  a  most  miserable  condition,  or  have  been  driven  to  other 
countries  to  seek  habitations  where  governments  respect  men  and  have 
regard  for  the  welfare  of  their  own  citizens.  England  alone  places  a 
premium  on  emigration;  she  alone  seeks  to  drive  out  her  defenders. 
When  free  trade  was  adopted,  the  Manchester  manufacturers  made  their 
choice  between  free  trade  and  the  rural  population.  The  loss  of  rural 
population  has  deprived  them  of  their  best  customers,  and  now  they  are 
complaining  of  the  poverty  of  their  buyers  at  home.  An  Australian 
newspaper,  in  speaking  of  the  policy  of  the  English  government,  said: 

The  mother  countr>'  offers  a  premium  for  national  decay,  and  sedulously  culti- 
vates the  dry  rot  of  greed,  which  makes  money  take  the  place  of  men,  and  which 
crowds  the  sinewy  peasant  out  of  the  land  to  make  room  for  the  stunted  cotton 
spinner;  ....  and  as  she  sows  the  wind  so  she  will  reap  the  whirlwind.  The 
gradual  extinction  of  the  producing  classes  of  Britain  must  inevitably  end  in  the 
l)ottomless  pit  of  national  ruin.  There  is  not  room  in  this  world  of  strife  and 
;ij;gression  for  a  nation  of  shop-keepers. 

Purelj^  on  a  basis  of  national  economy,  independent  of  humane  con- 
siderations, the  destruction  of  English  agriculture  has  proven  most  unwise. 
The  yearly  consumption  of  about  $600,000,000  of  agricultural  produce 
which  might  be  raised  on  English  soil,  is  an  absolute  loss  of  that  amount  to 
the  United  Kingdom.  Deducting  the  proportion  which  would  go  to  the 
government  in  tax  rates,  at  least  $500,000,000  would  be  added  to  the  spend- 
able income,  and  increase  the  purchasing  power  of  the  English  people. 
Were  this  vast  sum  annually  added  to  the  produce  of  the  soil  of  the  coun- 
try, it  would  increase  the  value  of  real  estate,  induce  improvement,  and 
thereby  add  to  the  permanent  wealth.  Eocal  merchants,  mechanics,  farm 
laborers,  tenant  farmers  and  landowners  would  be  made  prosperous. 
The  purchasing  power  of  the  nation  so  enhanced,  would  improve  the  home 
market  for  every  consumable  commodity  and  impart  life  and  vigor  and 
prosperity  to  every  workshop  and  factory  in  the  Kingdom.  Mr.  William 
J.  Harris  itttered  a  sound  economic  opinion  when  he  stated  before  the 
Royal  Commission  that  he  believed  that  the  production  of  $250,000,000 
of  food  in  England  was  equivalent  to  the  production  of  $400,000,000  of 
maiuifactured  goods  to  the  v/orking  classes,  estimating  at  $150,000,000  the 
sum  expended  for  the  production  of  raw  materials  to  sustain  manufactures, 
and  considering  the  fact  that  the  profits  derived  therefrom  are  divided 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


among  so  few.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  exports  from  England 
of  the  three  great  branches  of  manufacturing  in  1890,  were  as  follows: 
Cotton,  $297,641,943;  woolens,  $94,619,000;  iron,  $193,000,000.  Total, 
$585,260,943.  This  is  less  than  the  imports  of  competing  agricultural 
products.  The  ability  of  the  English  people  to  produce  at  home  sufficient 
farm  product  to  feed  their  own  people  under  proper  regulations,  cannot  be 
seriouslj'  questioned.  The  example  aiforded  by  France,  Germany,  Bel- 
gium and  Holland,  in  sustaining  agriculture  by  a  system  of  protective 
tariffs,  furnishes  a  complete  answer  to  those  who  question  the  proposition. 
France  is  one  of  the  greatest  agricultural  countries  in  the  world,  standing 
third  in  the  production  of  wheat.  The  large  amount  of  agricultural  pro- 
duce imported  into  England  from  the  Continent  each  year  shows  conclu- 
sively what  might  be  accomplished  in  England  by  giving  the  same 
protection  and  encouragement  to  the  industry  as  has  been  accorded  by 
those  countries.  Upon  this  proposition  the  Fair  Trade  Journal  quoted 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Mitchell  as  follows; 

Only  two  years  ago  Mr.  Mulhall  told  us  in  his  "Few  Years  of  National 
Growth"  that  "with  the  growth  of  population  the  ratio  of  imported  food"  (which  he 
estimated  at  38  per  cent  of  our  total  consumption)  "must  increase,  not  that  the 
United  Kingdom  could  not  produce  food  for  forty  or  fifty  millions  of  people,  but 
that  agriculture  is  so  cosily  and  unprofitable  an  industry  that  it  is  neglected  for  other 
pursuits."  One  of  the  main  contentions  of  that  most  misleading  article  is  in  the 
words  of  Mr.  Mulhall  himself,  "that  the  more  we  import  the  cheaper  is  food  and 
so  much  the  better  fed  are  the  working  classes,"  a  doctrine,  the  logical  conclusion 
from  which  would  seem  to  be  that  the  sooner  British  agriculture  perished,  the  better 
for  the  nation !  This  doctrine,  however,  which  has  been  loudly  enough  proclaimed 
by  prominent  free  traders,  would  seem  to  have  been  somewhat  discredited  of  late, 
since  even  the  Cobden  Club  has,  we  are  told,  begun  to  take  thought  for  the  interests 
of  agriculture.' 

The  following  table  gives  the  area  and  population  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  compared  with  six  of  the  United  States,  from  which  the  reader 
will  form  a  clearer  idea  of  the  proportionate  size  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
The  population  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  given  for  1891,  and  the  States 
for  1890: 


Great  Britain,  Ireland,  Isle  of  " 
Man,  and   Channel  Islands,  . 

Massachusetts . 

N\-\v  Yoik 

New  Jersey,        

Delaware 

Maryland,  


Total  ; 


1890 
1890 


8,040 
47,620 

7,455 
44.985 

1,960 

9,860 


1890 
1880 


119,920 


291-3 
315-0 

278.5 
126.0 
193-8 
1 16.9 
96.0 
105-7 


35,241,482 
38,104,975 

2,238,943 
5.997,853 
1.444.933 
5,258,014 
168,493 
1,042,390 

16,150,626 
13,361,514 


'Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  4. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


Of  this  area  in  the  United  Kingdom  the  land  is  divided  as  follows: 


I 


Arable,     .    . 

Woodland, 

Unimproved, 

Total, 


Wales.        Scotland. 


60.0 
3-5 


72.0 
1.6 
26.4 


Total 

United 

Kingdom, 


617 

3-8 
34-5 


While  under  improved  methods  of  cultivation,  the  soil  of  every 
country  on  the  inhabitable  globe  is  being  made  to  increase  in  its  yield, 
the  yearly  production  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  declining.  While  the 
land  is  being  neglected,  England  counts  among  her  exports  in  1893, 
manure  to  the  value  of  $11,547,105.  Instead  of  buying  fertilizers  and 
attempting  to  keep  the  soil  up  to  its  former  richness,  it  is  permitted  to 
grow  poorer  and  less  productive.  The  results  which  have  followed  free 
trade  have  more  than  justified  the  wise  and  patriotic  action  of  Disreali, 
Lord  George  Bentinck,  the  Marquis  of  Granby  and  their  associates,  who 
so  ably  defended  the  cause  of  protection  against  the  frenzy  and  imbecility 
of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League. 

General  Trades. 

The  limits  of  this  work  will  not  admit  of  a  full  treatment  of  the  evi- 
dence given  before  the  Royal  Commission,  showing  the  universal  and 
widespread  results  of  free  trade  in  England.  Sufficient  facts,  however, 
have  been  presented  relating  to  the  chief  industries  of  the  country,  to 
satisfy  the  reader  that  there  is  scarcely  a  department  of  production  exempt 
from  the  downward  tendency  which  the  parsimonious  policy  of  "cheap- 
ness "  has  brought  to  the  country.  The  following  evidence,  relating  to 
general  trades  and  business,  is  added  to  that  heretofore  quoted. 

Henry  L.  Muller  and  William  Wiley  Lord,  representing  the  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce  of  Birmingham,  general  merchants  and  exporters,  said 
on  examination: 

A  considerably  smaller  number  of  guns  are  now  produced  in  Birmingham,  in 
fact,  military  trade  is  almost  nothing  to  what  it  was.  Most  of  the  governments 
that  Birmingham  used  to  supply  make  their  guns  themselves  now ;  they  have  laid 
plants  down  of  their  own.     I  am  speaking  of  military  guns,  small  arms. 

(Mr.  Lord.  )  Those  are  largely  manufactured  by  gigantic  establishments  in  the 
United  States,  but  sporting  guns  are  still  made  largely  in  Birmingham.  Guns  that 
would  be  used  by  sportsmen,  as  of  the  higher  class,  and  in  other  case  of  guns  that 
are  exported  of  small  value,   £1  each  or  155.,  or  something  like   that;  those  largely 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

go  from  Belgium  in  the  present  day,  and  the  demand  for  ours  have  fallen  off  in 
consequence  of  the  Belgian  competition  for  the  commoner  kinds.i  Q.  Have  the 
Belgians  any  natural  advantages  for  making  guns,  which  thej'  could  compete  with 
the  English?  (Mr.  Lord.)  A.  It  is  a  matter  of  cheap  labor.  I  attribute  the 
falling  off  in  trade  to  the  duties  imposed  by  foreign  countries.  Foreign  tariffs  have 
generally  injured  the  Birmingham  trade  most  decidedl}',  for  instance,  in  Spain. 
Q.  You  spoke  did  you  not,  of  the  American  entering  into  competition  with  guns? 
A.  No,  not  competition.  I  say  in  order  to  supply  their  own  wants.  There  is  Amer- 
ican competition  in  guns.  The  American  competition  in  small  arms  is  more  a 
question  of  terms. 

Belgium  and  the  United  States  are  protective  nations,  this  fact  has  not  prevented 
the  development  of  competition  which  has  been  injurious  to  us.  Both  Belgian 
and  American  guns  and  small  arm  makers,  have  succeeded  in  quite  equaling  us, 
and  quite  beating  us ;  but  under  the  protective  system  thej'  have  not  been  prevented 
in  any  wa}',  in  my  opinion,  from  competing  with  us.  There  is  great  competition 
in  home  trade  and  neutral  markets,  in  such  articles  as  wire,  nails  and  buttons  from 
Germany.  The  Germans  beat  us  in  those  articles  in  the  home  trade,  for  price ;  and 
yet,  the  Germans  have  adopted  protection,  in  no  respect  has  it  weakened  their  com- 
petition. In  my  opinion,  it  has  improved  their  position,  because  it  enables  them 
by  the  duties  that  are  launched  against  foreign  competition  to  send  their  .surplus 
productions  to  this  country,  and  to  sell  them  at  a  less  rate  than  the  majority  of  their 
productions  are  sold  at  home.  The  effect  of  the  protective  system,  which  has  placed 
them  in  command  of  their  home  market,  has  enabled  them  to  sell  the  surplus  of 
their  productions  at  lower  prices  and  to  strengthen  their  competition  with  us  in 
neutral  markets.  The  trade  with  Germany  has  been  decreased  owing  to  the  improved 
workmanship  on  the  part  of  the  Germans.  I  attribute  it  to  the  general  advance  of 
manufacturing  in  Germany.  I  was  there  about  a  month  ago,  and  various  things 
were  shown  me  that  they  now  make  in  Germany,  which  they  formerly  used  to 
import  from  England.' 

George  Gribble,  representative  of  Messrs.  Cook,  Sons  &  Co.,  dealers 
in  all  classes  of  goods  that  are  used  for  the  clothing  of  men,  women  or 
children — all  textile  fabrics,  cotton,  woolen  and  silks,  was  examined  and 
said: 

If  I  might  be  allowed  to  say  so  with  respect  to  our  woolen  dress  trade,  whereas 
at  one  time  the  bulk  of  the  goods  that  we  sold  for  ladies'  dresses  was  made  in  this 
country,  now  by  far  the  larger  portion  come  from  France  and  Germany.  We  have 
an  English  woolen  dress  department,  and  a  French  woolen  dress  department,  which 
also  includes  Germany  for  woolen  goods.  Whereas  our  English  department  used  to 
be  by  far  the  larger  of  the  two,  our  foreign  department  is  now  quite  four  times  as 
large  as  the  English  department,  and  the  same  remark  will  apply  to  ribbons.  At 
one  time  we  had  an  English  ribbon  department,  and  a  French  ribbon  department, 
but  we  found  that  the  English  ribbons  would  not  compete  with  the  foreign  ribbons, 
and  we  have  now  done  away  with  our  English  ribbon  department  altogether,  and 
the  bulk  of  our  ribbon  trade  is  done  in  foreign  ribbons  now.  And  the  same  remark 
will  apply  to  knit  woolen  goods,  which  are  largely  made  in  Leicester,  and 
which,  at  one  time,  we  used  to  buy  in  Leice,ster,  and  now  the  whole  of  those  goods 
come  from  Germany.  We  find  that  they  can  be  brought  from  Berlin  to  London 
almost  at  the  same  price  per  carriage  as  it  would  cost  to  bring  them  from  Leicester. 
Of  course  the  French  and  Germans  compete  verj' much  with  us  now  in  the  colonies, 
for  the  same  reason  that  they  do  in  this  country,  because  they  make  more  suitable 
'  Royal  Commission.  Second  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  15. 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


goods,  and  also  because  they  are  cheaper.  There  are  a  great  many  goods  that  we 
make  in  this  country  a  great  deal  better  than  the  French  and  Germans  do.  We 
have  thirty  departments  in  our  warehouse,  and  I  ca-n  only  point  to  five  in  which 
the  French  beat  us.  They  are  ribbons,  silks,  woolen  dress  materials,  knit  goods 
and  gloves. ' 

It  is  then,  in  those  goods  in  which  the  largest  amount  of  labor  enters 
that  the  French  and  Germans,  by  reason  of  lower  wages  and  longer  hours, 
are  able  to  outstrip  their  English  rivals. 

The  following  brief  extracts  taken  from  reports  of  Chambers  of  Com- 
merce and  Commercial  Associations,  to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Trade 
and  Industry,  touching  certain  trades  which  have  not  been  referred  to  in 
the  evidence  quoted,  and  also  supplementing  what  has  already  preceded 
with  additional  facts,  embrace  all  the  information  from  such  sources  that 
the  limited  space  devoted  to  this  division  of  the  subject  will  permit. 

Exeter — Chamber  of  Commerce.      Paper  trade. 

The  principal,  in  fact  the  only  cause  of  the  decline  of  the  paper  trade  is  foreign 
competition.  The  depression  has  since  1875  been  uniform.  No  profit  whatever  is 
now  got  from  a  great  portion  of  the  trade.  There  are  thirteen  paper  mills  now  left, 
as  against  fifteen  in  1870.  The  Factory  Act  affects  the  paper  trade  injuriously  in 
competition  with  the  foreigner,  as  we  lose  twelve  hours  a  week  as  compared  with 
him.     Fall  in  prices  is  due  to  foreign  competition.  ■' 


,  Glasgow- 
Mason. 


-Chamber  of  Commerce.     Memorandum  of  Mr.   Stephens 


Machinery,  both  spinning  and  weaving,  has  been  largely  exported  from  this 
country  to  the  Continent.  In  manj'  instances  the  same  class  of  machines  are  run 
there,  twelve,  fifteen  and  twenty-two  hours  per  day,  against  that  of  nine  hours  in 
this  country,  thus  rendering  it  utterly  impossible  for  the  home  manufacturer  to 
compete  successfully  either  in  neutral  markets  abroad,  or  even  at  home,  against  the 
free  importations  from  the  Continent.' 

Yet  this  is  the  sort  of  competition  the  free  traders  of  the  United 
States  would  compel  American  labor  to  meet. 

Huddersfield — Chamber  of  Commerce.  Woolen  and  worsted  manu- 
factures, dyeing  and  finishing.  Cotton  spinning  and  doubling.  Woolen 
yarn  spinning.  Chemical  manufactures  and  machine  making.  Letter 
of  Mr.  Charles  Moon. 

Answer  to  Question  10.  As  proof  of  the  deplorable  state  this  trade  has  been  in 
for  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years,  we  must  respectfully  beg  to  inform  you,  we  hold  a 
list  of  over  fifty  firms  of  spinners  who  have  been  ruined  and  brought  into  bankruptcy 
court  during  that  period.  This  list  can  be  produced  for  your  perusal  if  required.  The 
sole  cause,  we  think,  of  the  unprofitableness  in  the  yarn  trade  is  brought  about  by 
the  large  imports  of  foreign  yarn,  which  is  monthly  increasing  and  gradually  beat- 
ing down  the  home  spinner  in  our  own  markets.  While  we  are  debarred  by  high 
tariffs  from  exporting  coarse  yarns,  our  machines  are  eminently  adapted  for  produc- 
ing cheaply.  The  foreign  spinner  comes  here,  in  times  of  depression,  and  realizes 
•  Royal  Commission,  Second  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  135.        =  First  Rep.,  Appendix  A.        3  jd. 


KKTVRX  TO  FREE  TliADE. 


his  yarns  at  under-cost  of  production,  to  the  great  loss  and  embarrassment  of  the 
home  spinners. 

We  also  wish  to  bring  before  the  notice  of  your  council,  the  large  and  ever- 
increasing  importation  of  yarns  spun  in  Saxony,  and  known  by  the  name  o' 
"Crisp"  and  "Imitation."  .  This  class  of  yarn  appears  to  be  imported  as  largely 
as  wool  yarn,  but  there  appears  no  classification  of  these  yarns,  in  the  returns  pub- 
lished by  the  board  of  trade,  a  state  of  things,  we  think,  which  ought  to  be  rem- 
edied. 

Another  proof  of  the  very  serious  state  of  trade  here  is  to  be  found  in  the 
depreciated  value  of  carding  and  spinning  machinery.  Good  machines,  and  for  all 
practical  purposes,  equal  to  new,  if  brought  into  the  market,  will  only  realize 
some  30  or  40  per  cent  of  their  cost  price.  Mill  propertj'  is  also  in  a  similar  posi- 
tion. One  noted  firm  of  spinners  here  has  recently  bought  40,000  or  50,000  pounds 
of  German  yarn,  while  their  own  spinning  machinery  is  standing.  We,  therefore, 
think  you  ought  seriously  to  take  into  considerations  those  facts  when  framing  your 
replies  to  the  questions  sent  \'ou  to  answer  by  the  Royal  Commission  on  Trade 
Depression.' 

Liverpool — Answers  by  representative  watch  manufacturer : 

Watch  manufacturing  was  formerly  of  special  importance ;  it  is  now  of  very 
little  importance  in  Liverpool.  Thirty  years  ago  the  amount  of  capital  invested 
was  probably  ^200,000  to  .,^300,000.  Probably  iSoo  operatives  were  employed  in 
the  various  branches.  At  present  I  do  not  think  there  are  two  hundred,  mostly  old 
men  and  (none  or)  few  apprentices  being  taken.  The  bulk  of  the  operatives  before 
dying  suffered  greatly,  became  casual  dock  laborers,  and  entirely  sunk  in  the  social 
scale.  2 

• 

Under  a  free  trade  maxim  they  were  to  find  employment  in  some 
more  profitable  industry.  This  furni.shes  an  admirable  illustration  of  the 
actual  operation  of  free  trade.  It  .shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  transfer 
artisans  from  one  trade  to  another,  especially  under  excessive  compe- 
tition to  which  all  industries  are  subjected  by  the  over-production  which 
is  taking  place  in  all  branches  of  trade. 

Thirty  years  ago  four-fifths  of  the  large  number  of  watches  made  in  Liverpool 
was  exported  to  the  United  States — this  trade  has  been  entirely  killed  by  the 
increased  American  tariff.  In  fact,  it  maybe  said  that,  whatever  an  English 
watch  can  be  sold  for  abroad,  it  is  thus  excluded  or  crippled,  while  the  home  market 
is  flooded  with  American  and  Swiss  surplus  stocks.  It  began  when  the  United  States 
seriously  raised  their  tariff,  and  is  at  its  lowest  point  now,  if  it  does  not  go  any 
lower. 

Manchester— Cotton  industry.  The  great  and  rapid  increase  in  pro- 
duction of  manufactures  of  other  countries,  which  formerly  were  .supplied 
by  Great  Britain,  is  shown  by  the  following  evidence: 

"Increased  competition  at  home  and  abroad,  in  every  market,  a  nmch  larger 
number  of  firms  or  distributors,  more  .sellers,  but  few  buyers."  The  failure  of 
British  Colonies  and  foreign  States  to  support  the  free  trade  policy  of  G 
Britain.      The   system    entirely    broke    down    on 


conditi 


hold  that 


(■stem   which 

rsl  K<.'port,  .Al>|R- 


ide.     .     .     .     Under   .such 
1    twenty-five   years'   trial. 


FEEE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


and  which  has  in  certain  occupations  been   so   detrimental  to  many  thousands  of 
artisans  and  traders  should  at  least  be  thoroughly  investigated. 

And  unless  vast  numbers  of  industrious  artisans  must  of  necessity  be  sacrificed 
for  the  advantage  of  the  country,  their  unfortunate  and  unmerited  position  should 
lead  to  some  change  in  the  relation  of  customs  duties, that  shall  give  a  fair  field  for 
the  industry  of  loyal  citizens,  who  have  not  done  anything  to  forfeit  the  considera- 
tion and  good  will  of  their  fellow  countrymen. 

Carriage  Building. 

Foreign  carriages  and  harness  brought  into  England  duty  free,  in  direct  com- 
petition with  English  manufacturers. 

Sheffield. 

The  coal  trade,  the  iron  trade  and  products  thereof,  the  steel  trade  and  products 
thereof,  including  files  and  saws,  the  cutlery  and  edge  tool  trade,  the  silver,  electro- 
plate, and  Britannia  metal  trades.  Foreign  competition  is  also  a  serious  matter  in 
most  of  the  trades  carried  on  in  this  district.  Formerly  a  most  lucrative  trade  was 
carried  on  with  the  United  States,  which  drew  very  large  supplies  from  this  district. 
The  duties,  however,  which  have  been  placed  upon  these  goods  have,  for  the  present 
at  any  rate,  extinguished  the  trade,  except  where  great  excellence  of  quality  renders 
the  cost  no  object. 

From  Germany  the  lowest  quality  of  goods  made  in  this  district  have  been 
almost  entirely  shut  out  by  duties,  and  the  same  remarks  apply  to  France,  to  Spain 
and  to  Italy. 

Leather  Trade  Association  of  London. 

A  very  considerable  falling  off  in  production,  particularly  from  1880  to  1885, 
both  in  volume  and  gross  value;  profits  almost  nil;  great  diminution  in  capital 
employed  and  employment  of  labor.  The  imports  of  tanned  leather  increased 
steadily  from  1866  to  1884;  in  1866,  76,487  cwts.  to  686,393  cwts.  in  1884,  while 
exports  have  only  increased  from  38,900  cwts.  to  177,484  cwts.  Take  raw  hides 
during  the  same  period,  and  we  see  the  following  results:  In  1866  we  imported 
1,056,643  (less  re-exported  2:8,929),  837,714;  in  1884,  1,217,744  (less  re-exported 
481,954)  735,793.  This  shows  that  our  tanners  are  working  in  about  102,000  less  raw 
hides  than  they  were  twenty  years  since.  This,  taken  in  connection  with  our  own 
large  increase  in  population,  and  the  increase  and  development  of  our  colonies  and 
other  markets,  proves  how  much  of  the  trade  of  the  world  is  slipping  away  from  us. 

Foreign  competition.  The  imports  of  finished  leather  of  all  descriptions  have 
increased  rapidly  since  1880,  and  exports  have  not  increased,  thus  showing  how 
much  we  have  to  complain  of  in  foreign  tariffs.  We  could  hold  our  own  against 
all  competition  and  sell  in  all  markets  were  these  ports  as  free  to  the  English  leather 
as  ours  are  to  foreign.  Secure  us  free  ports,  or  allow  us  to  supply  ourselves. 
There  are  causes  at  work  that  affect  the  trade,  viz.,  higher  wages  than  the  Conti- 
nental workmen  get,  and  shorter  hours  of  labor,  and  excessive  rates  in  taxes,  through 
our  sanitary  laws  being  more  severe.  The  results  are,  of  course,  beneficial  to  the 
community,  but  they  none  the  less  operate  in  favor  of  increasing  the  cost  of 
production.  1 

The  reports  of  the  Chambers  of  Commerce,  and  of  the  associations  of 
business  men  from  the  cities  and  industrial  centres  of  the  United  Kingdom, 

1  Royal  Commission,  Second  Report,  Part  I.,  p.  412. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


representing  the  various  branches  of  productive,  distributive  and  com- 
mercial industries  and  callings,  were  of  the  same  import  as  the  evidence 
quoted.  The  universal  opinions  expressed  were  to  the  effect  that  three 
causes  were  operating  to  undermine  the  industries  of  the  country : 

1.  Foreign  tariffs  under  which  nations  are  building  up  and  maintain- 
ing manufacturing  industries,  which  supply  their  own  market  to  the 
exclusion  of  British  goods. 

2.  Foreign  competition  in  neutral  markets. 

3.  Foreign  competition  of  agricultural  products,  and  fully  or  partly 
manufactured  goods  in  the  home  market. 

The  commission  submitted  Majority  and  Minority  reports  to  parlia- 
ment, together  with  the  individual  opinions  of  members  who  dis.sented 
from  certain  paragraphs  of  the  reports,  and  upon  some  questions  involved 
gave  their  individual  opinions.  One  fact  of  great  importance  was  con- 
curred in  by  all  members  of  the  commission.  It  was  conceded,  that  the 
condition  of  trade  and  industries  disclosed  by  the  evidence  arose  from  no 
exceptional  or  temporary  depression.  The  Minority  Report  states,  "that 
it  has  arisen  in  the  main  from  causes  which  appear  to  us  to  be  of  not  a 
temporary,  but  of  a  permanent  character." 

The  witnesses  were  not  describing  calamities  which  have  befallen 
their  industries  by  a  temporary  panic  or  crisis,  arising  from  over-specu- 
lation and  over-trading,  but  from  cau.ses  which  have  appeared  under  that 
system  of  free  imports  which  has  exposed  every  branch  of  production  to 
the  assault  of  strong  and  powerful  competitors  on  the  Continent.  An 
examination  of  the  records  of  the  Board  of  Trade  discloses  the  fact  that, 
as  imports  of  agricultural  produce  fully  and  partly  manufactured,  goods 
have  increased,  the  depression  has  been  intensified  and  the  pinching  hard 
times  have  been  more  severely  felt.  That  portion  of  the  Minority  Report 
which  points  out  the  classes  of  people  affected  by  the  industrial  revolution 
which  is  taking  place,  is  most  significant  of  the  future  of  the  United 
Kingdom  as  a  producing  country.     It  reads  as  follows : 

33.  The  classes  who  enjoy  fixed  incomes,  or  incomes  derived  from  foreign 
investments,  or  from  property  not  connected  with  productive  industries,  appear  to 
have  little  ground  of  complaint;  on  the  contrary,  they  profit  by  the  remarkable 
cheapness  of  commodities. 

Those  who  are  engaged  in  the  import  trade,  find  little,  if  any,  contraction  of 
its  volume,  though  they  have  suffered  from  the  continuous  fall  of  prices. 

Those  engaged  in  the  retail  distribution  of  commodities,  whether  of  home  pro- 
duction, or  manufacture,  or  imported,  make  little  complaint,  except  in  specially 
depres,sed  districts;  they  have,  indeed,  in  many  cases  been  able  to  realize  very  full 
profits,  in  consequence  of  the  extremely  low  prices  at  which  their  wholesale  pur- 
chases have  been  made. 

34.  There  are  many  evidences  that  a  large  accumulation  of  capital  has  been  in 
progress  even  during  the  period  of  depression. 

In  a  country  possessing  vast  foreign  investments,  and  a  great  international 
buying,  selling  and   carrying   trade,  this   may   well  happen,  whilst  the  earnings  of 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 


its  industries  and   the   employment   of    its   population   are   either  stagnant  or  posi- 
tively declining. 

But  the  diminished  value  of  real  estate,  and  of  industrial  investments,  and  the 
loss  of  capital  sustained  by  farmers  and  other  traders,  must  be  set  ofl  against  the 
accumulations  from  other  sources,  before  any  accurate  judgment  can  be  formed  as 
to  the  increase  of  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  country. 

35.  The  complaints  proceed  chiefly  from  the  classes  interested  in  production : 

1.  From  the  owners  of  agricultural  land,  and  of  works,  buildings,  or  mines, 
who  have  suffered  a  great  reduction  of  income,  and  a  serious  diminution  of  capi- 
tal vahie  of  their  property. 

2.  From  those  who  conduct  productive  industries,  such  as  farmers,  manufac- 
turers and  those  engaged  in  the  mining  and  building  trades.  These  all  complain 
of  the  restriction  or  total  absence  of  profit  and  in  many  cases  of  a  contraction  of 
demand  which  enforces  upon  them  a  reduced  and  therefore  more  costly  production. 

3.  From  the  artisans  and  laborers  of  whom  considerable  numbers  in  some  dis- 
tricts are  entirely  unemployed  whilst  a  much  larger  number  have  onlv  partial  or 
intermittent  work  in  consequence  of  which  their  actual  earnings  are  greatly  dimin- 
ished, though  there  has  apparently  been  no  general  or  considerable  reduction  of 
the  rate  of  wages. 

36.  The  losses  both  in  the  shape  of  reduced  income  and  diminished  value  of 
principal  which  have  been  suffered  by  the  owners  of  property  are  so  completely  a 
consequence  of  the  unprofitableness  of  the  industries  for  which  their  property  serves 
as  a  basis  that  it  would  be  useless  to  consider  them  separately.  Their  amount  is, 
however,  as  distinct  and  disastrous  a  diminution  of  the  wealth  and  wages  fund  of 
the  nation,  as  the  like  loss  suffered  by  any  other  class  would  be. 

39.  The  relative  decline  of  some  of  our  greatest  national  industries  during  the 
past  ten  or  twelve  years  in  proportion  to  the  population  of  the  country,  is  shown  in 
many  ways  in  the  figures  which  have  been  placed  before  us,  and  in  the  evidence 
we  have  received : 

1.  In  the  progressive  decline  of  agricultural  employment,  and  of  the  condition 
and  production  of  the  soil. 

2.  In  the  marked  cessation,  during  the  same  period,  of  the  wonted  increase  in 
the  proportion  of  our  population  employed  in  textile  manufactures. 

3.  In  the  diminishing  proportion  of  the  world's  production  of  cotton,  wool, 
flax  and  silk,  which  is  manufactured  in  this  country. 

4.  In  the  increased  value  of  our  imports  of  finished  manufactures  during  a 
period  in  which  (a)  prices  have  fallen  very  greatly;  (b)  the  value  of  our  exports 
of  the  like  articles  has  seriously  declined ;  (c)  a  large  amount  of  labor  and  machinery 
in  this  country  suited  to  their  production  has  remained  unemployed  or  only  partially 
employed. 

5.  In  the  increasing  proportion  of  our  exports  which  consists  of  coal,  steam 
engines  and  machinery ;  and  the  diminishing  proportion  which  consists  of  finished 
manufactures,  which  not  only  require  coal,  steam  engines  and  machinery  for  their 
production,  but  much  valuable  skilled   labor  besides. 

Referring  to  the  effect  of  tariffs  in  foreign  countries  the  report  says : 

123.   Nor  can  any  efforts  of  producers,   however   intelligent  or  energetic,  lessen 

these  difficulties;  for  every  improvement  made  by  them   is  at  once   appropriated 

by  their  protected  foreign  competitors,  through  the  purchase  of  English  machinery, 

and  the  engagement  for  a  time  of  English  superintendents. 

On  the  contrary,  it  is  inevitable  that  any  industry  which  is  engaged  in  a  hope- 
less struggle  against  insuperable  difficulties,  must  sooner  or  later  fall  into  a  condi- 
tion of  languor,  and  of  decreasing  ability  to  meet  competition.     Those  engaged  in 


betubjX  to  free  trade. 


it  lose  heart  and  hope ;  capital  and  talent  are  gradually  withdrawn  from  it ;  and  as 
it  offers  reduced  remuneration  and  a  diminished  prospect  of  advancement  to  skilled 
labor,  the  quality  of  the  labor  employed  in  it  tends  continually  to  decline,  and  its 
productions  deteriorate. 

124.  The  depression,  then,  so  far  as  it  arises  from  the  permanent  and  growing; 
causes  just  named,  cannot  fail  to  recur,  after  each  interval  of  relief,  with  equal  or 
increasing  force;  and  this  must  be  endured,  unless  the  nation  shall  determine  to 
counterwork  bj-  active  measures  the  disturbing  influences  which  are  artificially 
produced  by  foreign  legislation. 

The  commission  was  divided  in  stating  its  opinions  upon  the  reme- 
dies which  should  be  adopted  to  cure  the  existing  evils  from  which  the 
productive  industries  of  the  country  were  suffering  and  to  restore  internal 
prosperitj'.  The  Minority  Report  recommended  a  return  to  a  protective 
tariff,  while  the  free  trade  members  of  the  commission  in  the  Majority 
Report,  still  adhered  to  the  policy  of  free  trade ;  yet  in  framing  paragraph 
82,  they  distinctly  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  in  the  following 
language : 

As  regards  the  future,  should  any  symptoms  present  themselves  that  foreign 
competition  is  becoming  more  effective  in  this  respect,  it  must  be  for  the  country 
and  the  workman  himself  to  decide  whether  the  advantages  of  the  shorter  hours 
compensate  for  the  increased  cost  of  production  or  diminished  output.  We  believe 
that  they  do  and  on  social  as  well  as  economical  grounds,  we  should  regret  to  see 
any  curtailment  of  the  leisure  and  freedom  which  the  workman  now  enjoys.  No 
advantages  which  could  be  expected  to  accrue  to  the  commerce  of  the  country 
would,  in  our  opinion,  compensate  for  such  a  change. 

The  evidence  given  before  them,  of  the  calamities  Which  had  been 
brought  to  the  laboring  masses  by  Mr.  Cobden's  policy  of  "cheapness," 
was  so  appalling  that  the  sense  of  justice  of  every  member  of  this 
important  official  body,  was  aroused  with  the  exception  of  one.  The 
grinding-down  process  which  forms  the  economic  basis  of  the  theory  of 
free  trade,  is  such  an  important  element  that  Bonamy  Price,  the  eminent 
free  trade  economist,  who  was  a  member  of  the  commission,  dissented 
from  the  paragraph  quoted,  in  the  following  language : 

I  beg  to  express  my  dissent  from  paragraph  82.  It  contains  a  specific  repudia- 
tion of  the  great  doctrine  of  free  trade.  Shorter  hours  of  labor  do  not,  and  cannot, 
compensate  to  a  nation  for  increased  cost  of  production  or  diminished  output. 
They  tax  the  community  with  dearer  goods,  in  order  to  confer  special  advantages 
on  the  working  man.  They  protect  him,  and  that  is  a  direct  repudiation  of  free 
trade.     The  country  is  sentenced  to  dearer  and  fewer  goods. 

This  declaration  of  Professor  Price  is  a  confirmation  of  the  opinion 
of  those  believing  in  the  doctrine  of  protection,  that  the  practical  opera- 
tion of  the  principles  of  free  trade  is  inimical  to  the  laboring  masses, 
having  for  its  specific  purpose  the  maintenance  of  the  lowest  possible 
wage  scale,  in  order  to  assure  cheap  production. 

While  sufficient  proof  is  found  in  the  evidence  of  manufacturers,  busi- 
ness men  and  laborers,  and  in  the  reports  from  the  various  organizations 


FREE  TRADE  AND  ENGLISH  INDUSTRIES. 

presented  to  the  commission  to  condemn  Cobdenism,  the  specific  question 
of  the  relative  benefits  which  might  be  derived  from  protection  or  free  trade 
was  evaded,  so  far  as  possible,  by  the  free  trade  members  who  controlled 
and  directed  the  action  of  the  commission.  That  this  was  purposely  done, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  question.  It  has  been  the  design  of  the  Cobden 
Club  and  the  advocates  of  free  trade  in  recent  years  so  far  as  possible  to 
cover  up  and  misrepresent  the  real  causes  which  are  operating  to  undermine 
the  industries  of  the  country.  The  failure  to  specifically  direct  the  inves- 
tigation which  was  held,  to  economic  problems,  was  charged  by  the  Fair 
Trade  Journal  to  be  a  part  of  the  free  trade  plan.  Members  of  the  Cobden 
Club  and  the  representatives  of  the  free  trade  party  refused  to  participate 
in  the  investigation  and  expose  the  policy  to  a  vigorous  attack  by  protec- 
tionists.    The  Fair  Trade  Journal  on  June  4,  1886,  said: 

Lord  Derby,  speaking  as  chairman  of  the  Cobden  Club  banquet  in  18S2,  said 
in  effect  "That  we  must  by  all  means  avoid  even  an  examination  into  the  working 
of  our  fiscal  system  for  fear  foreign  States  should  imagine  that  we  entertain  doubts. ' ' 
Mr.  Gladstone,  in  his  famous  speeches  at  Leeds  in  1881,  gave  expression  to  the 
same  sentiment.  Mr.  Mundella  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  if  we  mistake  not. 
Lord  Granville  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  various  other  Liberal  politicians  have, 
on  different  occasions,  re-echoed  the  same  notion.  The  refusal  to  join  in  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Trade  was  only  the  outcome  of  this  feeling.' 

I  Vol.  I,  p.  266. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

The  Free  Trade  Policy  a  Failure. 

To  illustrate  the  growing  discontent  with  the  free  trade  system  the 
following  quotations  from  the  writings  and  speeches  of  eminent  English- 
men are  given : 

Free  trade  has  produced  exactly  the  effect  that  was  prophesied  in  1S46,  both  on 
trade  and  agriculture.  That  is  to  say,  free  trade  for  years  succeeded  because  it  failed, 
and  is  noiv  failing  becuase  it  has  at  last  succeeded. — E.  S.  Cayle. 

Our  free  trade  friends  attribute  our  commercial  advance  in  former  years  to  free 
trade.  To  what  do  they  attribute  our  commercial  decline  at  the  present  time?— 
Digby  W.  Cayley. 

I  am  a  rabid  fair  trader,  a  protectionist  if  you  like,  because  the  work-people  of 
this  country  are  starving  in  the  streets,  undersold  by  foreign  labor. — Mr.  Cunning- 
ham Grahame. 

With  regard  to  free  trade,  they  had  the  old  nostrum  trotted  out,  that  they  should 
buy  in  the  cheapest  markets,  regardless  of  consequences.  If  this  absolute  cheapness 
were  good,  then  let  them  import  Oriental  labor,  let  them  encourage  the  sweating 
system,  and  approve  of  the  slave  trade. —George  Shipton,  President  Trades"  Union 
Congress,  1888.  ., 

In  case  of  war,  no  navy  in  the  world  can  protect  the  huge  stream  of  food  which 
pours  every  day  into  this  country. — Admiral  Close,  February,   1889. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  are  suffering  from  the  operations  of  foreign 
tariffs.  Let  us  boldly  say  that  if  these  duties  continue,  England  will  have  to 
retaliate.— The  late  Samuel  Morley,  when  M.   P.  for  Bristol. 

It  is  a  marvel  the  people  of  England  have  submitted  to  free  trade  so  long,  and 
it  will  not  be  long  before  there  will  be  a  marked  change.— Lord  Carnarvon,  in 
Australia,   1SS7. 

Great  as  are  the  benefits  of  cheap  food,  they  nmst  be  weighed  against  the 
disadvantages  of  paralyzing,  more  or  less,  the  greatest  of  our  home  industries. — 
Lord  Armstrong. 

He  would  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  should  the  system  of  foreign  export  bounties 
be  continued  any  further,  he  would,  as  the  remedy,  meet  such  unfair  competition 
by  means  of  counter\'ailing  duties. — Mr.  Wilson,  M.  P. 

In  a  few  years  the  (luestion  of  protection  in  England  will  be  one  of  the  most 
burning  questions  with  which  they  have  to  deal.— Lord  H.  Bruce,  M.  P. 

What  Mr.  Gladstone  considers  the  discipline  which  the  Almighty  has  appointed 
for  us,  Carlyle,  with  deeper  insight  regards  as  a  voice  of  earthly  profit  and  loss. 
"We  have,"  he  says,  "Hell  in  England- the  hell  of  not  making  mone)'.  We  coldly 
see  the  all-conquering  sons  of  toil  sit  enchanted  by  the  millions  in  their  Poor  Law 
Bastile,  as  if  this  were  nature's  law— mumbling  to  ourselves  some  vague  janglement 
of  laissez  faire  supply  and  demand,  cash  payment  the  one  nexus  of  man  to  man  : 
free  trade,  competition,  and  devil  take  the  hindmost,  our  latest  gospel  yet  preached.  " 
— Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  VI,  page  5o. 

(300) 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


I  have  believed  in  free  trade  all  my  life,  but  my  fear  is  that  it  will  not  last.  It 
prospered  when  all  its  conditions  were  in  our  favor,  but  this  does  not  prove  that 
it  will  prosper  when  the  conditions  are  extensively  changed. — Cardinal  Manning. 

This  question  of  the  protection  of  the  industries  of  Ireland  is  one  of  vital 
importance  for  the  nation.  We  have  to  consider  the  interest  of  the  artisans  of  the 
towns  and  of  the  laborers  in  the  country,  and,  as  I  have  already  stated,  it  is  my 
firm  belief  that  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  keep  this  portion  of  the  laboring 
classes  at  home  and  in  comfort  without  protection  to  Irish  industries.  It  is  a 
problem  which  requires  the  utmost  exertion  on  our  parts  to  solve.  The  life  of 
Ireland  is  dependent  upon  the  preservation  of  her  bone  and  sinew.  Our  population 
has  diminished  at  the  rate  of  a  million  a  decade  during  the  past  forty  years;  it  is 
time  that  it  should  be  put  a  stop  to,  and  that  it  should  be  possible  for  the  laborers, 
the  artisans  and  mechanics  of  Ireland,  to  live,  thrive  and  prosper  at  home. —Charles 
Stewart  Parnell,   as  reported  in  the  Dublin  Freeman's  Journal,  of  August  22,    18S5. 

Turn  your  eyes  where  you  will,  survey  any  branch  of  English  industry  you  like, 
you  will  find  mortal  disease.  The  self-satisfied  Radical  philosopher  will  tell  you  it 
is  nothing ;  they  point  to  the  great  volume  of  British  trade.  Yes,  the  volume  of 
British  trade  is  still  large,  but  it  is  a  volume  which  is  no  longer  profitable  It  is 
working  and  struggling:  so  do  the  muscles  and  nerves  of  the  body  of  a  man  who 
has  been  hanged,  twitch  and  work  violently  for  a  short  time  after  the  operation. 
But  death  is  there  all  the  same,  life  has  utterly  departed,  and  suddenly  comes  the 
rigor  mortis.  Well,  with  this  state  of  British  industr)',  what  do  you  find  going  on? 
You  find  foreign  iron,  foreign  wool,  foreign  silk,  and  cotton  pouring  into  the 
country,  flooding  you,  drowning  you,  sinking  you,  swamping  you;  your  labor 
market  is  congested,  wages  have  sunk  below  the  level  of  life,  the  misery  in  our 
large  towns  is  too  frightful  to  contemplate,  and  emigration  or  starvation  is  the 
remedy  which  the  Radical  offers  you  with  the  most  undisturbed  complacencj'.  But 
what  produced  this  state  of  things?  Free  imports?  I  am  not  sure.  I  should  like 
an  inquiry ;  but  I  suspect  free  imports  of  the  murder  of  our  industries,  much  in  the 
same  way  as  if  I  found  a  man  standing  over  a  corpse  and  plunging  his  knife  into 
it.  I  should  suspect  that  man  of  homicide,  and  I  should  recommend  a  coroner's 
inquest  and  a  trial  by  jury. — Randolph  Churchill,  Blackpool,   1884. 

The  onl}'  mode  in  which  a  country  can  save  itself  from  being  a  loser  by  the 
revenue  duties  imposed  by  other  countries  on  its  commodities  is,  to  impose  corre- 
sponding revenue  duties  on  theirs. — John  Stuart  Mill's  "Principles  of  Political 
Economy, ' '  Book  V. 

I  know  Canada ;  you  do  not.  I  know  the  marvelous  change  which  has  occurred 
since  she  adopted  a  protective  tariff ;  the  proposals  of  the  Fair- Trade  League  to  have 
free  trade  with  our  colonies  and  dependencies,  and  protection  against  the  rest  of 
the  world,  were  in  the  highest  sense  patriotic. — Sir  John  Macdonald,  Prime  Min- 
ister of  Canada,  when  waited  on  by  Manchester  free  trade  advocates,  during  a 
visit  to  England. 

Just  as  Mr.  Bright  now  piles  up  his  abusive  epithets,  so  in  former  days  the 
freetraders  piled  up  their  profuse  prophecies. — Pall  Mall  Gazette,  November,  1887. 

It  is  a  striking  fact  that  during  the  past  twenty  years,  67  per  cent  of  our  emi- 
grants have  gone  to  the  (most  protected  country  in  the  world)  United  States,  and 
only  27 'i  per  cent  to  our  own  colonies. — Final  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission, 
p.  66. 

We  are  obliged  to  govern  our  wages  and  our  cost  under  the  influence  of  foreign 
markets.  I  am  quite  satisfied  that  in  a  trade  that  had  to  contend  with  foreign 
competition  fluctuation  of  wages  were  absolutely  necessary.  We  had  the  modern 
glove  trade.  It  has  gone  to  Germany,  and  we  have  no  glove  trade  left.  The  result 
was  that  the  glove  hands  came  down  to  nearly  half  what  they  formerly  had.     They 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


made  for  2id-  what  they  used  to  make  for  2S.  T,d. ,  and  then  they  could  get  no  em- 
ployment, and  the  trade  has  nearly  died  out.  That  was  not  a  satisfactory  state  of 
things  and  one  could  hardly  blame  an  individual  who  took  advantage  of  the  outrage- 
ous license  afforded  by  the  working  classes  of  their  own  country,  and  who  in  1863 
established  "a  factory  in  Saxony,  where  we  employ  700  Germans."  It  was  not  fair- 
trade  for  a  man  to  take  Nottingham  looms  to  the  Continent  to  be  worked  by 
foreigners,  and  the  produce  to  have  free  access  to  the  Nottingham  market  just  as  if 
the  work  had  been  done  in  Nottingham. — Vincent. 

The  rage  for  manufacture  and  commerce  at  the  expense  of  agriculture  is  a 
disease  which  has  been  the  eventual  ruin  of  ever>'  nation  that  has  suffered  from  it. 
Nor  can  we  hope  to  escape  the  consequences  of  its  deadly  ravages,  unless  by 
retracing  our  footsteps  before  it  is  too  late. — Reynold's  Weekly  Newspaper,  Sep- 
tember 16,   1888. 

It  is  all  very  well  to  be  the  storehouse  of  the  world,  and  even  its  carriers,  but 
the  basis  of  our  living,  as  a  people,  should  be  found  in  agriculture  and  the  home 
trade.  The  great  industry  of  agriculture  is  slowly,  but  apparently  surely,  dying  of 
inanition  and  exhaustion,  while  our  genuine  home  trade  is  being  cut  down,  if  not 
killed,  by  foreign  imports. — Kemp's  Mercantile  Gazette,  February  29,   1888. 

If  a  really  serious  war  broke  out,  in  which  one  or  more  of  the  great  naval 
powers  endeavored  to  intervene  between  ourselves  and  the  sources  of  our  food 
supplies,  there  would  be  a  famine  in  this  country  in  a  week.  This  is  a  fact  which 
has  never  sufficiently  impressed  itself  upon  the  imaginations  of  the  English  people, 
or  upon  the  intellects  of  our  statesmen.  But  it  is  a  fact,  nevertheless. — Shipping 
Gazette,   1S89. 

The  opinion  expressed  by  the  Royal  Commission  in  its  report  to  par- 
liament in  1886,  that  the  depression  in  trade  and  industries  was  due  to 
no  exceptional  or  temporary  causes  has  been  confirmed  by  the  experience 
of  recent  years  which  have  followed.  That  system  of  free  trade,  or  free 
imports,  which  in  1885  was  sapping  the  vitals  of  British  indu.stries,  was 
the  essential  cause  of  the  loss  of  profits,  reduced  wages,  lack  of  employ- 
ment and  universal  stagnation  in  business.  Since  1885  the  increase  in 
the  imports  of  competing  commodities  which  has  taken  place  has  intensi- 
fied the  suffering  which  to  such  an  extent  prevails  among  the  masses  of 
the  people.  It  has  prolonged  and  made  more  severe  that  life-and-death 
struggle  which  has  been  raging  in  every  branch  of  productive  industry, 
since  the  effect  of  free  trade  began  to  be  felt. 

Notwithstanding  the  brazen  tricks  which  have  been  played  with  fig- 
ures and  statistics  by  members  of  the  Cobden  Club,  the  truth  can  no 
longer  be  suppressed ;  the  world  can  no  longer  be  deceived  by  those  state- 
ments which  have  been  put  out  proclaiming  the  pro.sperity  of  the  United  ■ 
Kingdom  and  the  benefits  of  free  trade.  They  have  persistently  exhib- 
ited the  large  imports  and  exports  of  the  country  as  an  evidence  of  its 
prosperity.  After  piling  up  long  columns  of  figures  showing  the  exter- 
nal trade  of  the  country,  they  at  once  concluded  that  this  of  itself  proved 
their  case.  Such  arguments  can  only  deceive  tho.se  who  have  failed  to 
study  the  character  of  the  trade  embodied  in  the  imports  and  exports.  A 
year  of  good  trade  is  often  compared  with  a  year  of  bad  trade,  and  the 
result  put  out  as  an  indication  of  industrial  growth. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  writer  has  compiled  an  analysis  of  the  external  trade  of  the 
country,  from  the  official  returns  of  the  statistical  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment. Great  care  has  been  exercised  in  classifying  and  preparing  the 
several  tables  and  the  closest  scrutiny  of  their  accuracy  is  invited. 
The  amounts  are  reduced  to  United  States  money  for  convenience,  reckon- 
ing a  pound  sterling  at  $5.00;  a  pound  sterling  in  fact  representing  about 
$4.86  in  United  States  coin.  The  figures  for  the  years  1836  and  1846 
were  taken  from  Macgregor's  Commercial  Statistics,  compiled  by  him  from 
the  official  records  of  the  government,  he,  having  been  for  many  years, 
member  of  the  statistical  department. 

The  tables  which  show  a  classification  of  the  imports  and  exports  are 
numbered  from  twelve  to  twenty-two,  and  will  be  found  at  the  close 
of  this  chapter. 

The  articles  imported  are  classified  under  two  heads ;  (i)  Compet- 
ing imports,  or  the  imports  of  those  articles  of  the  produce  of  foreign 
countries,  the  like  of  which  might  be  produced  in  the  United  Kingdom. 
(2)  Non-competing  imports,  or  tho.se  articles  the  like  of  which  cannot  be 
produced  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Competing  imports  are  classified  as 
follows : 

Table  No.  12  shows  the  agricultural  produce  of  foreign  countries, 
consumed  by  the  English  people  in  1836,  1846,  1856,  i860,  1865,  1870, 
1875,  1880,  1885  and  1890. 

Table  No.  1 3  shows  the  fully  manufactured  articles  produced  in  other 
countries  imported  and  consumed  by  the  English  people,  in  each  of  the 
years  named. 

Table  No.  14  shows  the  imports  into  England  of  partly  manufactured 
articles,  retained  for  home  consumption,  in  the  several  years. 

The  non-competing  articles  are  set  forth  in  the  following  tables  for 
the  years  stated. 

Table  No.  15  enumerates  the  imports  of  raw  materials  imported  for 
home  consumption. 

Table  No.  16  specifies  those  food  products,  the  like  of  which  cannot 
be  grown  in  England,  and. 

Table  No.  17  gives  a  list  of  the  imports  of  dutiable  articles. 

For  the  purpose  of  bringing  before  the  reader  a  clearer  statement  of 
the  importations  of  the  United  Kingdom  during  the  years  mentioned,  a 
summary  (Table  No.  9,  page  304),  is  here  presented  of  the  several 
tables  of  imports  named  above,  together  with  the  percentage  of  increase 
of  the  various  classes  from  1870  to  1890.  This  table  (9)  also  shows 
total  imports,  re-exports  and  amounts  retained  for  home  consumption.  It 
has  been  the  constant  boast  of  free  trade  writers,  that  the  imports  into 
the  United  Kingdom  had  more  than  doubled  between  i860  and  1890. 
The  purchase  by  the  English  people  in  1890,  of  $2,103,000,000  of  the 
produce  of  other  countries,  discloses  a  vast  foreign  trade  in  importations. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Table  No.  9. 

Schedule  Showing  a  Summary  of  Imports  for  Hotne  Consumption  into  the 
with  Total  Imports  and  Re-exports  of  Foreign  and  Colonial  Produce 


Schedule  No.  12. 

Total  imports  of  agricultural  produce 

Total  imports  of  agricultural  produce  re-ex- 

Total  imports  of  agricultural    produce  re- 
ned  for  home  consumption 

Schedule  No.  ij. 

Total  imports  of  fully  manufactured  articles, 

Total  imports  of  fully  manufactured  articles 

■exported 

Total  imports  of  fully  manufactured  articles 
retained  for  home  consumption, 

Schedule  No.  14. 
Total    imports    of   partially   manufactured 

Total    im'ports   of   partially    manufactured 

rticles  re-exported 

tal    imports    of    partially    manufactured 
rticles  retained  for  home  consumption,   . 

Schedule  No.  15.    . 

Total  imports  of  raw  materials, 

Total  imports  of  raw  materials  re-exported, 

Total  imports  of  raw  materials  retained  for 

home  consumption, 

Schedule  No  16. 

Total  imports  of  food  products, 

Total  imports  of  food  products  re-exported. 

Total  imports  of  food  products  retained  for 

home  consumption 

Schedule  No.  IT. 

Total  imports  of  dutiable  articles, 

Total     imports   of    dutiable    articles    re-ex- 

Total  in'iports  of  dutiable  articles  retained 
for  home  consumption 

Total  competing  imports,  Schedules  Nos.  12, 
13  and  14, 

Total  competing  imports,  re-exported, Sched- 
ules Nos.  12.  13  and  14 

Total  competing  imports  retained  for  home 
consumption.  Schedules  Nos.  12,  13  and  14, 

Total  non-competing  imports,  Schedules 
Nos.  15,  16  and  17 

Total  non-competing  imports,  reexported. 
Schedules  Nos  15,  16  and  17 . 

Total  non-competing  imports  retained  for 
home  consumption.  Schedules  Nos.  15,  16 
and  17 

Total  classified  imports 

Total  unclassified  imports 

Total  imports  per  statistical  abstract 


COMPETING  IMPORTS. 


6,996,135 

$  29,331,160 

$157,565,450 

2,752,910 

1,467,975 

2,431,570 

4.243."5 

27,863,185 

155,137,070 

8,062,815 

14.731,710 

48,772,900 

3,722,425 

5,785.260 

13,072,455 

5,037,510 

8,946,450 

42,917,475 

1,807,040 

5,150,265 

62,380,685 

.,849,265 

2,203,855 

7,523,730 

1,209,620 

2,948,795 

54,856,955 

NON-COMPETING  IIMPORTS. 

^e^^% 

•r8;??J;BS 

378.963.355 
32.331,770 

27,618,365 

115,874,000 

327.859.690 

35.593.610 
7.493.285 

45,287,315 
7,258,855 

78,409,745 
10,430,415 

29,590,720 

38,705,405 

68,184,110 

44,490,3'io 

56,172,875 

83,788,295 

14,024,725 

",953,310 

21,785,78s 

31.472,425 

44,219,538 

62,002,510 

SUMMARY. 


214.493.625 
28,341.295 

188,681,510 
23l.359.6i5 
47.307.480 
278,667,095 


49.213.135 
9.457.090 
39.758.430 
245.463.335 
47.977.000 


198,798,943 
294.676,470 

365!288'4So 


268,719,035  I  350,202,330 

23,027,755  21,420,085 

252,911,500  I  329,619.310 

541,161,395  i  655,534,075 

84,547,970  I  116,763,525 


-  ,.-  1,430  I  1,005,736,405 
52,840,340  I  46,917,960 
862,720,770      1,052.654,365 


FPEE  TRADE  POLICV  A  FAILURE. 


United  Kingdom,  from  Schedules  Nos.  /2,  /j,  z/,  /j,  r6  arid  rj,  together 
for  the   Years  Stated. 


1870.  1875. 


Increase  or 
1890.  Decrease  Per  Cent 

1870  to  1890. 


COMPETING  IMPORTS. 


1209,732,985  !  $284,401,010 


1460,999,665  ]    $596,295,c 


.0,346,655 

8,224,465 

14,892,355 

274,054,355 

452,775,200 

581  499.930 

174, •■6,735 

233,790,000 

259,654,770 

11,797,020 

22,448,8.5 

31,842,585 

164.221,335 

200,823,045 

227,762,180 

142,939.620      .53.2.9,4.5 
..255,855 


*537)987.78o  |    $616,601,770     Increase, 
14,340,210  17,971,935  ,  Increase, 

523.647.570        598,629,835  \  Increase, 


253, 


.360 
30,115,210 
222,768,150 

159,764,840 
2.,68o,i65 
138  084,675 


309,190,415  :  Increase,  77.6 

34, .50.325  \  Increase,  189.5 

275,040,090  Increase,  67.5 

178,521,530  Increase,  66.2 

28,491,485  Increase,  .86.6 

.50,030,045  Increase,  53.9 


NON-COMPETING    IMPORTS. 


160,897,850         163,91:, S45  '  Increase, 
503,599,420        508,126,335        429,851,295        505.4.4,945     Decrease, 


.35,533,480        185,120,265        163,623,070 
>,785         55,296,070         52,709,015 
95,322,795  i      .29,786,800  i      110,915.650 


'43,654,075 
34.554,270  33.733, 

1.388,285 


4'4,04.,I75 

565,927,145 

837,729,285 

1,009,170,150 

950,835,950 

22,048,230 

32,083,585 

48,072,540 

67,990,795 

66,.35,585 

393.707,6.5 

535.744,075 

779,138,605 

940,269,370 

884,500,795 

896,630,170 

9I2,47.,950 

981,602,160 

977,3.1,425 

849,677,090 

2.34.785,870 

.83,054,065 

235.243,755 

234,466.420 

212,799,060 

66<,845,290 

1.310,671.345 

44,690.080 

.,355,36. ,425 

729,543,590 
.,5.6.287,465 

746,332,010 

'■^5^;|i^:^^ 
.,869,697,885 

742,350,600 

636,799,045 

.,800,513,070 

54.326,705 

..854.839.775 

Increase, 
Decrease, 


1,104,313,715     Increase,  95.1 

80,613,745  I  Increase,  151. 3 

1,023,699.970  I  Increase,  91. i 

917,082,030     Increase,  .5 

703,064.040     Decrease,  3.6 
Increase,  36. 


, .fd 

Increase,       38.7 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


But  instead  of  this  being  an  evidence  of  prosperity,  it  is  the  most  positive 
proof  of  national  decaj^  when  the  fact  is  revealed  that  nearlj^  one-half  of 
this  vast  sum,  or  $1,023,669,000  consisted  of  competing  articles,  the  like 
of  which  might  have  been  produced  in  England  under  the  policy  of 
protection,  and  furnished  employment  for  labor  and  the  investment 
of  capital  at  home.  This  vast  sum  of  consumable  commodities  con- 
sted  of, 


Agricultural  produce,  .  .  . 
Fully  manufactured  articles, 
Partly  manufactured  articles. 


$598,629,835 
275,040,090 
150,030,045 


Total, $1,023,699,970 

The  reader  should  carefully  study  the  tables,  from  which  the  sum- 
mary Table  9  is  taken.  The  percentage  of  increase  and  decrease  of  the 
various  classes  of  articles  from  1870  to  1890,  shows  a  most  significant 
result.  While  during  the  twenty  years  from  1870  to  1890,  competing 
imports  retained  for  home  consumption  increased  91.  i  per  cent,  the  im- 
ports of  non-competing  articles  retained  for  home  consumption  during  the 
same  period  decreased  3.6  per  cent.  While  the  imports  of  fully  manufac- 
tured goods  increased  67.5  per  cent,  the  imports  of  raw  materials 
decreased  7.  i  per  cent.  No  more  positive  evidence  could  be  presented  of 
the  causes  which  are  undermining  the  productive  industries  of  the  coun- 
try. While  the  increase  of  competing  commodities  is  displacing  articles 
which  otherwise  would  be  made  in  English  factories,  a  relative  decline  in 
the  consumption  of  raw  materials  not  only  shows  that  the  export  trade 
is  not  proportionately  increasing,  but  is  proof  of  decaying  industries. 
Such  results  existing  under  free  trade  confirm  the  views  of  protectionists 
in  all  parts  of  the  world,  upon  the  necessary  and  inevitable  effect  of  free 
trade  upon  the  industries  of  a  country,  when  subjected  to  sharp  compe- 
tition. When  the  policy  of  free  trade  was  entered  upon,  the  British  peo- 
ple not  only  held  a  monopoly  of  foreign  markets,  but  from  their  farms  and 
factories  were  supplying  the  wants  of  their  people  at  home.  In  1846  the 
imports  of  fully  manufactured  goods  for  home  consumption  amounted  to 
only  $8,946,000;  of  partly  manufactured  goods,  $2,948,000.  The  insig- 
nificance of  these  amounts  is  shown  by  a  comparison  with  the  vast  quan- 
tities of  similar  domestic  articles  exported.  In  1836,  the  imports  of 
agricultural  produce  for  home  consumption  amounted  to  $4,243,000.  In 
1846,  the  foreign  purchases  were  larger  because  of  the  failure  of  the 
potato  crop  and  the  wheat  harvest.  The  steady  increase  of  imports  of 
competing  commodities,  year  by  year,  shows  how  the  undermining  pro- 
cess gradually  went  on,  until  in  1872  the  turning  point  came  and  the  effect 
became  so  noticeable  that  complaints  of  hard  times  were  universally 
heard.     The  cau-ses  which  have  led  to  the  chronic  depression  of  trade 


FREE  THADE  I'OLIC 


which  exists  in  the  United  Kingdom,  cannot  be  mistaken.  The  increase 
of  competing  imports  has  continued  up  to  the  present  time.  A  nation 
which  pursues  the  policj'  of  bujdng  in  foreign  countries,  articles  which 
might  be  produced  at  home,  when  its  own  labor  is  idle  and  suffering  for 
want  of  work,  when  its  capital  is  seeking  investment  in  foreign  countries 
cannot  be  said  to  be  exercising  a  proper  degree  of  care  for  the  welfare  of 
its  own  people.  No  amount  of  sophistry  can  show  that  the  masses  of  the 
English  people  are  benefited  by  the  large  purchases  of  competing  imports 
which  are  taking  place.  The  British  glove  makers  cannot  be  benefited 
by  the  importation  of  $8,000,000  worth  of  gloves,  nor  the  silk  workers  by 
$51,000,000  of  manufactured  silk;  nor  the  spinners  and  weavers  in  the 
woolen  mills  by  the  purchase  of  $38,000,000  of  woolen  goods  and  $S,  577,000 
of  woolen  and  worsted  yarn ;  nor  the  farmers  of  England  by  the  importa- 
tion of  $598,000,000  of  agricultural  produce,  and  so  one  might  go  through 
the  whole  list  of  competing,  consumable  commodities,  finding  that  over 
$1,000,000,000,  are  annually  paid  for  articles  that  are  brought  into  the 
country  solely  becau.se,  as  is  shown  before  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Industries,  they  can  be  produced  cheaper  in  other  countries. 
Sir  Edward  Sullivan  says  on  this  point: 

In  every  branch  of  British  industry'  the  products  of  foreign  labour  are  driving 
out  the  products  of  English  labour.  Employment  and  wages  are  fast  failing.  Agri- 
cultural labourers  are  competing  for  work  at  105.  and  95.  a  week.'  Those  who  live 
by  labour  say,  "Why  stand  we  here  idle  all  the  day?  Why  doth  no  man  hire  us? 
How  is  it,  that  in  the  largest  consuming  community  in  the  world,  with  consumption 
daily  and  hourly  increasing,  the  work  of  the  producers  is  daily  and  hourly  decreas- 
ing?" "Why  can't  we  get  work?"  say  the  workers,  and  the  answer  is  coming 
back  to  them  with  hourly  increasing  distinctness,  "Because  the  foreigner  is  doing 
your  work."  "Why,  then,  does  the  foreigner  do  our  work?"  asks  the  English 
worker.  ' '  Because  he  works  for  less  wages, ' '  says  the  free  trader ;  ' '  because  he 
works  longer  hours,  because  he  is  more  thrifty,  because  he  produces  cheaper. ' ' 
But  again  asks  the  English  workman,  "If  we  work  for  less  wages  and  longer  hour.s, 
and  are  more  thrifty,  and  produce  cheaper,  shall  we  keep  our  work?"  "No, 
indeed,"  replies  the  free  trader,  "the  foreigner  will  work  for  still  lower  wages  and 
still  longer  hours,  and  be  still  more  thrifty,  and  produce  cheaper  still.  It  is 
entirely  a  question  of  cost,  and  in  cost  they  can  always  beat  you."  "Then  we 
must  be  protected  or  leave  the  country, ' '  say  the  English  workers.  ' '  Leave  the 
country  you  may, ' '  replies  the  free  trader.  ' '  In  fact,  it  is  probably  the  verj'  best 
thing  3'ou  can  do;  but  protected  you  never  shall  be — not  indeed,  unless  you  make 
it  a  condition  of  giving  your  vote.  If  you  say  I  will  only  vote  for  those  who  will 
advocate  protection  to  labour,  then,  of  course,  the  question  assumes  an  entirely 
different  aspect.  Under  those  altered  circumstances  protection  might  become  as 
necessary  to  us  as  it  is  to  you."  Well,  it  is  not  quite  impossible  that  the  English 
workers  may  see  the  question  in  this  light  also.  They  may  make  the  promise  of 
protection  to  native  industry  the  condition  of  giving  their  vote,  and  then  what  a 
scuttle  we  shall  see.  Hey,  Presto!  and  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  free  traders 
would  become  protectionists  before  you  could  say  Jack  Robinson!  It  is  a  fact,  deny 
it  who    can,   that    this  question  of    protection    is    only  a  question  of    the  popular 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Table  No.  io.     Summary 

Schedule  Showing  a  Summary  of  the  Exports  of  Domestic  Productions, 
together  with  Re-exports  of  Foreigyi  and 


1.  Cotton    manufacture,    per    Schedule 

No.  1 8 

2.  Linen    manufacture,    per    Schedule 

No.  i8, 

3.  Jute  manufacture,  per  Schedule  No. 

18 

4.  Silk  manufacture,  per  Schedule  No. 

j8, 

5.  Woolen   manufacture,    per  Schedule 

No.  18, 

6.  Total  textile  fabrics,  per    Schedule 

No.  18 

7.  Iron     and    steel     manufacture,    per 

Schedule  No.  19 

8.  HardA'are  and  cutlery  manufacture, 

per  Schedule  No.  19 

9.  Copper   manufacture,   per    Schedule 

No.  19, 

10.  Miscellaneous    metal    manufacture, 

per  Schedule  No.  19, 

11.  Total  metal  manufacture,  per  Sched- 

ule No.  19 

12.  Earthen   and   china  ware  manufac- 

ture,  per  Schedule  No.  ig 

13.  Glass  manufacture,  per  Schedule  No. 

19 

14.  Total  exports,  per  Schedule  No.  19,   . 

15.  Miscellaneous      manufacture,      per 

Schedule  No.  20 

16.  Bleaching   and    raw  materials,    per 

Schedule  No.  21 

17.  Food  products,  per  Schedule  No.  22,  . 

18.  Total  classified  exports  of  domestic 

produce 

19.  Total  re-exports,  per  Statistical  Ab- 

20.  Total  unclassified  exports,  ...... 

Ji.  Total  exports.per  Statistical  Abstract, 


Annual 

1862. 

Annual 

Annual 

Average 

1866,  .17, 

1868. 

Annual 
.87.. 

Annual 
Average 

.872,  .873, 
.874. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

183, 7S3.:!?. 

220,4.0,889 

283,107,762 

279,2.1,535 

307,558.500 

22,985,099 

39.731,292 

40,214,165 

35.920,502 

37,746,907 

650,450 

1,519,471 

2,540,365 

4,265,36. 

7,928,500 

7.078.265 

7,143,603 

5,709,406 

7,689,335 

.0,1.8,146 

60,749,569 

90,384,249     102,614,142 

..9, .94,284 

134.223.504 

275,246.654 

359,189,504 

434,185,840 

446,281,017 

497,575,557 

58,757,305 

68,326,865 

78,288,532 

105,548,609 

143.520,242 

16,769,408 

17,802,945 

.7,545.226 

"9,258,953 

24,052.361 

13.495.521 

17,645.574 

14.337,792 

.     .5,188,363 
29,436,094 

16,088,05s 

15.833.531 

,.,„« 

17.302,759 

28,828,788 

104,855,765 

119,989,232 

127,474,309 

.69,432,019 

2.2,489,449 

6,235.701 

7,081,821 

8,391,065 

8,842,390 

10,349,603 

3ii45.6So 

3,777.296 

3,998,185 

4,328,490 

6,080,239 

114,237.146 

130.848,349 

.39,863,559 

182,602,899 

228,919,29. 

65.561.443 

77,446,502 

81,193,216 

90,635,473 

141,322,878 

135.290,053 

159,091.484 

196,020,1.5 

215,243,021 

296,091,7.4 

24.538,669 

24,382,705 

24,720,927 

31,602,579 

36,3.4,827 

614,873.965 

750.958,544 

875,983,657 

966^64,989 

1,200,224,267 

'll^'^^\ 

259,110.810 

238,2.5.566 
39,945,252 

253,438,980 
54,3"4,9I4 

%-\^% 

8i7,»3.305 

1.047.255,999 

1,154.144.475 

1.274,118,883 

1,538,740,105 

FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


OF  Total  Exports. 

from  ike   United  Kingdom,  from  Schedules  Nos.  i8,  ig,   20,  2i  ajid 
Colonial  Produce,   and   Total  Exports. 


\ 


Increase 

Percent 

i860  to 

1874. 

Annual 

Average 

187s,  1876, 

1877. 

1878,^1879, 

Annual 

Average 

1S81,  1882, 

18S3. 

Annual 
Average 

"«;^8r' 

Annual 

Average 

1887.  1888. 

1889. 

Annual 
1S92. 

Decrease  or 

Increase  JPer  Cent 

1874  to  1892. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

67.3 

284,155,707 

280,746.203 

319,653.346 

285,689,968 

297.838,23c 

297.641.943 

Decrease, 

...    3.3 

64.2 

31.213.330 

28,073.202 

28,757.559 

25,667,187 

27.971.034 

26,513.777'Decrease, 

.    .    .  29.8 

1,118.9 

7.517.768 

9,679.261 

12,091,926 

10,286,133 

11.448.848 

12,871.403  Increase, 

.    ■    .62.3 

42.9 

8,723,728 

9.418,035 

12,805,506 

10,609,909 

12.496.359 

9,382,200  Decrease, 

•    ■    ■    7-3 

120. 9 

96,010,009 

83.089,345 

92,021,440 

97.869,930 

103,187,541 

94.619,550 

Decrease, 

•    •    ■  29.5 

80.8 

427,620,542 

411,006,046 

465,329.677 

430.123.127 

452.942.012 

441,028,873 

Decrease, 

.    ..1..4 

144-3 

95.796.645 

88.785,597 

122,169,680 

99.764.398 

118,271,056 

118,908.362 

Decrease, 

.    .    .17.1 

43-4 

I8.475.6i8 

16,411,810 

19,574,010 

14.733.653 

'5.131.250 

12,477,912  Decrease, 

.    .    .48.1 

I9.I 

15.383.753 

15,854,804 

17,233.529 

15,417.127 

14,953.005 

20,238,658 

Increase, 

.    .    .  25.8 

81.5 

26,349.487 

23,973.657 

29.338,883 

34.596,392 

35.130.039 

41,715.042 

Increase, 

.    •  ■  44.7 

102.6 

156,005,503 

145.025.868 

188,3.6,102 

164.511.570 

183.485.350 

193,339.974 

Decrease, 

.   .    .    9.0 

66.0 

9.138,395 

9.432,820 

11,409,758 

10,406,868 

11,685,501 

11,909,60c 

Increase, 

.    .    .  15-1 

93-3 

4,732,066 

4,100,696 

5,208,782 

4.980,594 

5.462,840 

4,940.259 

Decrease, 

.    .    .  18.7 

.00.4 

169,875.964 

158.559.3S4 

204,934.642 

179,899,032 

200,633,691 

210,189,833 

Decrease, 

.    .    .    8.2 

I15.6 

124,262,781 

125.397.796 

148,550,013 

132,711.412 

139,918,242 

146,997,755 

Increase, 

.    .    .    4.0 

I18.9 

233.627.361 

227,716,085 

276,264,670 

268,275,942 

287.222.189 

335,025,97s 

Increase, 

■    ■  12-5 

4S.0 

34,016,788 

37.704,908 

52,615,12. 

50.303,965 

53.6.5.709 

56,289,007 

Increase, 

.    ■  550 

95-2 

989.403.436 

960,384219 

1,147.694.123 

1.061,313.478 

1.134,331,843;l.lS9.53l.446 

Decrease, 

■   •      -9 

63-5 
92.0 

11.1^6;^?! 

288,734.295,    323.152,080 
52,017,635      44,443.062 

295,894,663     316,748,480 
40,127,449^      41,304.852 

318,605.350 
40,206,874 

Increase, 
Decrease, 

;;L':8 

88.3 

1.317,891,575 

1,301,136,1491,515,289,2651,397,335,5901,492,385,175 

1.548,343.679 

increase. 

.   .      .6 

BErURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

Free  traders  proclaim  with  glee  that  England  can  be  supplied  by  foreign 
workers  with  everything  she  consumes,  cheaper  than  she  can  be  supplied  by 
English  workers  at  home;  and  the  free  traders  are  right.  There  is  scarcely  any- 
thing that  cannot  be  produced  cheaper  in  some  part  of  the  world  by  foreign  labour 
than  it  can  be  produced  at  home  by  English  labour;  and  freight  and  transport  are  so' 
low  that  there  is  scarcel}-  a  single  article,  raw  or  manufactured,  that  will  not  pay- 
carriage  to  an  English  market.  England  need  produce  nothing,  she  can  be  supplied 
th  everything  she  requires  from  abroad ;  but  if  the  wealth  of  a  country  is  the 
value  of  what  it  produces,  the  wealth  of  England  must  decrease  as  the  value  of  her 
production  diminishes;  and  let  the  "figure-men"  say  what  they  like,  the  wealth  of 
the  country  has  diminished,  is  diminishing  and  will  continue  to  diminish  with 
accelerated  speed.  If  English  consumers  are  to  be  supplied  by  foreign  producers, 
how  are  English  producers  to  live?  How  can  they  buy  if  they  have  not  got  any 
money?  and  how  are  they  to  get  money  if  they  don't  earn  any  wages?  and  how  are 
they  to  earn  any  wages  if  they  don't  get  any  work?  How  can  they  consume  unless 
they  first  produce?  Did  the  folly  of  man  ever  conceive  more  suicidal  nonsense  than 
a  scheme  for  supplying  an  industrial  community  of  34,000,000  with  everything  they 
consume  from  abroad  cheaper  than  they  can  produce  it  themselves?  It  is  simply  a 
scheme  for  depriving  our  working  men  of  work.  It  is  only  political  economists  run 
riot  who  could  have  conceived  it. 

"Happy  work-people,"  says  the  free  trader,  "you  do  not  realize  the  enormous 
blessing  we  have  bestowed  on  you;  we  have  made  work  a  question  of  secondary 
importance  to  you;  we  have  put  you  into  a  position  in  which  you  can  actually  buy 
cheaper  than  you  can  produce.  It  is  true  you  have  no  work,  but  then  everj-thing 
is  cheap.  Think  what  your  position  would  have  been  if  you  had  no  work  and 
everything  was  dear!"  It  does  not  occur  to  them  that  live  and  let  live  is  the 
necessary  condition  of  prosperity ;  that  people  are  better  off  when  what  they  require 
is  at  a  fair  price,  and  they  have  the  money  to  buy  it,  than  when  it  is  below  cost 
price,  and  they  have  no  money  to  buy  at  all.' 

The  fact  has  already  been  mentioned  that  it  has  been  a  common 
practice  of  free  trade  writers  to  point  to  the  increase  of  exports  of  their 
domestic  productions  /ro7n  i860  to  1874,  and  to  conceal  from  the  world 
their  decline /ro;^  iSj^  to  the  present  time. 

The  writer  has  also  prepared  a  classification  of  the  exports  of  the 
United  Kingdom  from  i860  to  1892,  reduced  to  averages  of  periods  of 
three  years  each,  from  which  the  reader  can  study  their  growth  and  de- 
cline, during  the  whole  period  embraced  within  the  .schedules. 

Schedule  No.  18  exhibits  the  exports  of  textile  fabrics. 

Schedtile  No.  19,  the  exports  of  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel,  and 
other  metals,  earthen  and  china  ware,  and  glass. 

Schedule  No.  20,  of  miscellaneous  manufactured  articles. 

Schedule  No.  21,  bleaching  materials,  raw  materials,  coal,  machinery 
and  commodities  used  in  manufacturing  by  other  countries. 

Schedule  No.  22  shows  the  exports  of  miscellaneous  domestic 
products. 

Table  No.  10  exhibits  the  summary  of  the  schedules  of  exports,  together 
with  percentages  of  increase  from  1 860  to  i  S70 ;  also  showing  the  increase  or 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


decline  of  the  several  classes  embraced  within  the  schedules  from  1872  to 
1892.  While  the  exports  of  domestic  products  increased  95.2  percent 
from  i860  to  1872,  there  was  a  decline  of  nine-tenths  of  one  per  cent  during 
the  next  twenty  j-ears  from  1872  to  1892.  The  large  amount  of  exports  of 
foreign  and  colonial  products,  amounting  to  $318,605,000  in  1891  and 
1892,  discloses  the  large  proportion  of  exports  of  the  produce  of  the  labor 
of  other  countries  which  enter  into  their  sales.  Taking  the  total  exports, 
we  find  that  while  they  increased  88.3  per  cent  from  i860  to  1874,  during 
the  next  twenty  years  there  was  an  increase  of  only  six-tenths  of  one  per 
cent.  During  the  twenty  years  closing  with  the  year  1892,  the  exports  of 
textile  fabrics  declined  11. 4  per  cent.  Manufactures  of  iron  and  steel, 
and  other  articles,  embraced  in  Schedule  No.  19,  declined  8.2  per  cent,  while 
there  was  an  increase  to  the  extent  of  12.5  per  cent  in  the  articles  embraced 
within  Schedule  No.  20,  consisting  principally  of  machinery  and  coal. 

Many  causes  operated  to  bring  about  the  result  disclosed  by  the  figures 
given,  and  are  still  producing  their  effect.  In  the  finst  place,  the  most 
prosperous  and  highly  civilized  countries  of  the  globe,  by  developing  and 
maintaining  home  industries  through  the  system  of  protection,  are  pro- 
viding their  own  people  with  goods  which  they  formerly  purchased  in 
England,  thus  closing  some  of  the  be.st  markets  to  British  w^ares.  Again, 
the  vast  industrial  growth  which  has  taken  place  on  the  Continent  in 
recent  years,  has  so  increased  the  productive  capacity  of  its  vast  popula- 
tion that  large  sales  are  being  made  not  only  in  the  United  Kingdom  but 
in  the  British  colonies  and  po.ssessions,  as  well  as  in  the  markets  of  non- 
manufacturing  countries,  hence,  by  this  division  of  foreign  markets,  a 
large  portion  which  British  manufacturers  would  otherwi.se  control,  has 
fallen  into  the  hands  of  rivals.  This  condition  which  has  ari.sen  in  recent 
years,  together  with  the  tendency  throughout  the  world  toward  a  contin- 
uation of  the  policy  of  protection,  and  the  probability  of  all  the  British 
colonies  and  po.ssessions,  and  even  Asia  and  South  America,  engaging  in 
manufacturing  has  proven  the  necessity  for  the  revival  of  the  home  mar- 
ket, which  has  been  neglected  under  the  policy  of  free  trade. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  decline  in  exports  is  to  be  accounted  for  in 
part  by  the  fall  in  prices  which  has  taken  place.  While  this  to  a  certain 
extent,  is  true,  an  examination  of  the  records  of  exports  by  quantities, 
will  not  show  a  growth  corresponding  with  that  of  other  countries,  or  alter 
the  main  fact  that  the  export  trade  of  the  country  has  relatively  declined 
between  1874  and  the  present  time,  when  compared  with  any  similar  period 
during  the  past  century.  A  schedule  of  imports  made  up  by  quan- 
tities, would  exhibit  an  increase  in  the  imports  of  competing  commodities 
much  larger  than  is  .shown  in  the  tables  given.  Inasmuch  as  the  com- 
parison between  imports  and  exports  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  those  of 
other  countries  are  all  made  by  values,  all  being  affected  alike  by  the 
decline  in  prices,  the  comparisons  are  perfectly  fair. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Table  No.  ii. 
Shoci'hijf  Comparative  Growth  of  the  Foreign  Trade  of  the  Countries 
named  below,  frofn  1854.  to  1874,  from  18J4.  to  i8go,  and  from  1S34.  ''" 
i8go.  Compiled  from  a  Return  made  to  the  British  Parliament, 
February  18,  i8gi,  and  from  the  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United 
Kingdom.  (^Reduced  to  U.  S.  Money  at  $5  to  a  Pound  Sterling. ) 
Growth  of  Imports. 


1.  Belgium, 

2.  Sweden, 

3.  Spain,    , 

4.  Russia,  . 

5.  Holland, 

6.  Norway, 

7.  Portugal, 

8.  Frauce, 

9.  England, 

10.  Denmark, 

11.  United  States 

12.  Austria, 

13.  Germany 


1124,390,000 
21,850,000 
40,675,000 
55,700,000 
141,060,000 
15.555,000 
20,855,000 
341,840,000 
761,945,000 
31,780,000 
310,005,000 
104,365,000 
1  170,000,000 


1874. 


;f45t, 715,000 
82,580,000 
101,750,000 
373,270,000 
271,420,000 
51,605,000 
33,165,000 
884,503,000 
1,850,415,000 
64,775,000 
591,045,000 
342,875,000 
1, 177,050,000 


1890. 

Pfti 

SS^ii 

Sa|2 

1637,830,000 

262 

41.2 

104,465,000 

277 

26.5 

179,565,000 

1.50 

^-6.5 

203,325,000 

570 

^*45.5 

538,220,000 

90 

98.3  1 

57,960,000 

232 

12.3 

78,705,000 

59 

137-3  i 

1,090,480,000 

158 

23-3 

2,103,460,000 

142 

13-7  1 

85,285,000 

103 

31-7  i 

822,200,COO 

90 

39-1 

254,470,000 

228 

=  25.8 

1,431,175,000 

592 

21.6 

Growth  oi!  Exports. 


1.  Russia,  .    .    . 

2.  Belgium,  .    . 

3.  Sweden,    .    . 

4.  Holland,    .    . 

5.  Spain, 

6.  United  States 

7.  Norway, 

8.  Austria,     . 

9.  England,  . 

10.  France, 

11.  Denmark, 

12.  Portugal,  . 

13.  Germany, 


foi, 725,000 
142,695,000 

22,005,000 
121,010,000 

49,925,000 
246,670,000 

11,780,000 
109,010,000 
579,105,000 
357,535,000 

21,880,000 

16,230,000 
'  180,000,000 


1341,840,000 
414,040,000 

62,505,000 
211,240,000 

92,000,000 
610,710,000 

33,665,000 

293,110,000 

I  ,488,250,000 

940,420,000 

49,970,000 

29,445,000 
588,275,000 


$352,550,000 

560 

589,630,000 

190 

84,545,000 

184 

450,685,000 

•  74 

186,485,000 

84 

893,570,000 

147 

36,415,000 

185 

321  405,000 

168 

1,641,260,000 

1 56 

968,040,000 

;s 

64,955,000 

48,600,000 

Si 

1,212,000,000 

227 

Growth  of  Imports  and  Exports  Combined. 


1.  Russia,  .    .  . 

2.  Belgium,  .  . 

3.  Sweden,    .  . 

4.  Spain,    .    .  . 

5.  Holland,   . 

6.  Norway,    .  . 

7.  France,      .  . 

8.  Portugal, 

9.  United  States 

10.  England,  .  . 

11.  Denmark, 

12.  Austria,     .  . 

13.  Germany,  . 


1107,425,000 
267,085,000 
43,855.000 
90,600,000 
262,070,000 
27,335.000 
674.375,000 
37,135,000 
556,675,000 
1,341,050,000 
53,660,000 
213,375,000 
'  350,000,000 


|7iS,iio,ooo 
865,755,000 
145,085,000 
193,750,000 
482,660,000 
85,270,000 

1,824,920,000 
62,610,000 

1.201,755,000 

3,338,665,000 
114,745,000 
635,985,000 

1,765,325,000 


1555,875,000 

564 

1,227,460,000 

224 

189,010,000 

230 

366,050,000 

113 

988,905,000 

81 

94.375.000 

211 

2,058,520,000 

161 

127,305,000 

72 

1,715.770,000 

"5 

3,744,720,000 

124 

150,240,000 

114 

575,875,000 

198 

2,643.175,000 

404 

'29.2 
41.8 
30.3 

104.9 
10.7 

12.8 

103.3 
42.8 

12.2 
30.9 

'9-5 
49-7 


412.7 
378.1 
341-5 
265.0 
281.6 
272.6 
277-4 
219.0 
176. 1 
168.4 
165.2 
143.8 
741-9 


581.6 
313-2 
2842 
272.4 
273-5 
262.3 
209.1 
1948 
183-4 
170.S 
196.9 
1994 
573-3 


417-5 
359-6 
33'-o 
304.0 
2773 
245-3 
205.2 
242.8 
208.2 
179.2 
180.0 
169-9 
6552 


I-rom  Mnlhall's  Dictionary  of  Statistics,  p.  137.  for  1850.       '  Decrea.se  per  < 
i  only  lo  special  imports  and  exports,  which  do  not  represent  total  trade. 


Decrea.se  per  cent  1874  to  1890,  but 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  arguments  so  frequently  used  by  free  traders,  that  those  coun- 
tries practicing  the  policy  of  protection  cannot  participate  in  foreign  trade, 
is  fully  refuted  by  the  experience  of  the  leading  commercial  nations  of 
the  world  since  1854.  Under  free  trade  a  nation  becomes  impoverished; 
the  purchasing  power  of  its  people  diminishes,  and  with  reduced  wages, 
incomes  and  profits,  it  is  unable  to  purchase  as  largely  of  those  commodi- 
ties the  like  of  which  cannot  be  produced  at  home,  as  a  nation  whose  peo- 
ple through  increased  employment  and  greater  internal  prosperity,  have 
a  larger  spendable  income.  If  the  growth  of  foreign  trade  is  made  the 
test  of  the  increasing  prosperity  and  wealth  of  a  nation,  protective  countries 
do  not  suffer  from  the  comparison. 

The  character  of  the  literature  published  by  the  Cobden  Club,  for 
the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  world,  as  to  the  magnitude  and  growth  of 
British  trade  in  comparison  with  other  countries,  is  well  illustrated  in 
"Free  Trade  and  English  Commerce,"  written  by  Mongredien,  and  pub- 
lished in  1888,  in  which  we  are  told, 

^  Of  this  enormous  expansion  of  her  foreign  commerce,  England  owes  the  greatest 
to  her  adoption  of  free  trade.  The  development  of  her  commercial  intercourse 
with  the  rest  of  the  world  since  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  iu  1S46  and  of  the 
Navigation  Laws  in  1S49  is  marvellous.  In  1840  our  combined  imports  and  exports 
were  ^172,000,000;  in  187S  they  were  ;^6 11,000,000.  True  that,  in  most  countries, 
some  increase  of  foreign  trade  has  taken  place  within  the  same  period,  but  in  many 
cases  it  has  only  been  slight,  and  in  no  instance  has  it  progressed  in  anything 
like  the  same  ratio  (pp.  35-37). 

The  above  statement  untrue  at  the  time  it  was  first  published,  had 
grown  more  palpably  false  in  1888,  when  it  was  continued  in  the  last 
edition  of  the  publication.  The  book  containing  this  statement  has  been 
circulated  throughout  the  United  States  to  give  the  impression  that  the 
foreign  trade  of  Great  Britain  has  experienced  a  larger  development  than 
that  of  any  other  country.  It  was  put  out  by  the  Cobden  Club,  whose 
officers  must  have  been  fully  apprised  of  the  facts  contained  in  the 
schedule  of  the  Growth  of  Trade  of  the  Thirteen  Leading  Nations  of  the 
World. 

Table  No.  11,  page  312,  shows  the  growth  of  foreign  trade  of  the 
thirteen  nations  named.  The  total  foreign  trade  of  Russia  and  Austria, 
is  not  given.  Neither  the  Board  of  Trade  returns  nor  the  Statistical 
Abstract  of  the  United  Kingdom  from  which  the  table  is  compiled,  gives 
the  general  trade  of  these  two  countries,  hence,  a  fair  comparison  of  the 
trade  of  these  with  the  other  countries,  is  not  made.  It  is  a  significant 
fact  that  from  1874  to  1890,  as  well  as  from  1854  to  1890,  the  foreign 
trade  of  the  United  Kingdom  exhibits  a  smaller  degree  of  increase  than 
a  majority  of  the  countries  named. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Bringing  the  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
down  to  1892,  we  get  the  following  result: 


Imports: 

United  Kingdom,     .    . 
United  States,    .... 

Exports: 

United  Kingdom,     .    . 
United  States 

Exports    and    Imports 
gether: 
United  Kingdom,     .    . 
United  States,    .    .   .    . 


j!i,S5o,4i5>ooo 
591,045,000 


1,488,250,000 
610,710,000 


3,338,665,000 
1,201,755,000 


12,113,970,000 
861,875,000 


1,483,200,000 
1,073,205,000 


Inc.    14  % 
Inc.  46  % 


Dec.  y^  % 
Inc.  75  % 


Inc.     7  % 
Inc.  61  % 


It  should  be  noted  that  every  country  included  within  Table  No.  1 1 , 
to  a  larger  or  smaller  degree  protects  its  domestic  industries,  with  the 
exception  of  England.  While  the  foreign  trade  of  England  during  very 
recent  years,  when  compared  with  former  years,  has  declined,  the  other 
nations  mentioned  have  experienced  a  marvelous  growth,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  France.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  French  nation  has  not 
pressed  itself  into  foreign  trade  with  the  same  vigor  as  Germany,  England 
and  other  countries.  The  great  prosperity  and  wealth  of  France,  as  will 
be  pointed  out  later,  rests  upon  the  care  with  which  dqmestic  trade  is 
encouraged  and  cultivated. 

While  Table  No.  1 1 ,  is  presented  as  evidence  refuting  the  free  trade 
argument  that  the  policy  of  protection  restricts  and  prevents  a  nation 
from  engaging  in  foreign  commerce,  it  is  by  no  means  contended  that  the 
magnitude  of  the  external  trade  of  a  country  is  to  be  taken  as  the  only 
evidence  of  its  prosperty.  We  have  in  England  an  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  a  nation  may  build  up  a  large  one-sided  trade  and  participate,  to  a 
great  extent,  in  foreign  commerce,  and  at  the  same  time  have  its  countr\- 
filled  with  idle  artisans  and  its  domestic  industries  impoverished  and  in  a 
state  of  decay.  While  the  $1,000,000,000  of  competing  commodities 
consumed  in  England  each  year  swell  the  volume  of  its  foreign  trade, 
the>-  displace  labor,  drive  capital  out  of  the  country  and  produce  poverty 
and  degradation  at  home ;  when  if  the  same  commodities  were  produced 
in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  foreign  trade  would  be  le.ssened,  yet  that 
unregistered  home  trade,  which  does  not  appear  in  official  records  of 
exports  and  imports,  would  be  so  increased  that  prosperity,  industry  and 
comfort,  would  take  the  place  of  impoverishment,  idleness  and  want. 

The  experience  of  the  British  people  during  the  past  quarter  of  .1 
century,  has  demonstrated  the  utter  falsity  of  every  free  trade  maxim 
announced  as  the  basis  of  the  creed.      As  has  been  pointed  out,  it  \\as 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY 


urged  most  vigorously  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates,  that  in  case  an 
English  industry  was  found  to  be  unable  to  compete  with  foreign  labor, 
that  the  capital  invested  in  such  indiistry,  and  the  laborers  who  were 
being  employed,  would  be  at  once  transferred  to  some  profitable  employ- 
ment at  home.  During  the  recent  agitation  of  the  tariff  question  in  the 
United  States,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  this  proposition  has  been 
proven  to  be  untrue,  it  has  been  reiterated  and  urged  upon  the  American 
jieople  with  a  degree  of  apparent  candor,  which  is  most  scandalous.  The 
agriculturists  of  England,  instead  of  finding  employment  in  cities  and 
towns,  have  been  driven  to  foreign  countries.  They  have  sought  relief 
from  almshouses  and  in  emigration.  The  silk  weavers  of  Maccles- 
field who  clung  to  the  declining  and  decaying  industry  until  they  were 
unable  to  supply  themselves  with  funds  to  reach  the  protectionist  city  of 
Paterson,  N.  J.,  were  reduced  to  pauperism  and  forced  to  drag  out  a 
miserable  exi.stence  in  the  "Doomed  Town."  The  evidence  before  the 
Royal  Commission  shows  that  the  watchmakers  of  England  .shared  the 
same  fate,  and  so  it  has  been.  With  an  already  overcrowded  population,  as 
industries  have  been  ruined  by  large  importations  of  competing  products, 
the  country  has  been  filled  with  a  surplus  of  labor  unable  to  find  employ- 
ment. The  Minority  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Depression  of 
Trade  and  Indu.stry,  made  special  reference  to  this  point  as  follows: 

Whilst  the  amount  of  labor  employed  in  agriculture  ha.s  greatly  declined  during 
the  years  1874-18S5,  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  number  of  persons  employed  in 
textile  manufactures  has,  during  the  same  period,  not  only  failed  to  increase  at  the 
usual  rate,  but  has,  for  the  first  time,  diminished  in  proportion  to  the  popula- 
tion of  the  country;  there  has,  therefore,  been  no  absorption  by  the  textile 
industries  of  the  labor  displaced  from  agriculture,  and  we  have  no  evidence  to  show 
that  it  has  found  emplo3'ment  in  any  other  productive  industry. ' 

The  facts  presented,  together  with  the  opinions  of  the  members  of 
the  commission  who  signed  this  report,  ought  to  set  at  rest  this  proposi- 
tion ;  yet  it  matters  not  what  the  facts  are,  nor  what  the  experience  of 
nations  has  been  upon  this  or  any  other  economic  proposition,  the  advo- 
cates of  free  trade  will  in  the  future,  as  they  have  in  the  past,  persistently 
ignore  the  actual  experiences  of  man  and  continue  to  urge  the  usual  fal- 
lacies of  the  school.  The  champions  of  free  trade  are  certainly  wise  in 
one  respect;  by  refusing  to  consider  facts  and  resting  their  case  on  the 
alleged  infallibility  of  theories,  they  are  enabled  to  pursue  a  course  of 
argument  that  under  no  other  circumstances  has  been  resorted  to  by 
intelligent  men.  The  Final  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission,  brought  out 
the  important  fact  that  during  twenty  years  preceding  1886,  "67  per 
cent  of  the  emigrants  from  the  United  Kingdom,  went  to  the  United 
States,  the  most  highly  protected  country  in  the  world,  and  only  2-j%  per 
cent  found  homes  in  our  colonies. ' '     Immigrants  arriving  in  the  United 

•  Royal  Commissiou,  Final  Report  (Minority),  p.  43. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

States  from  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  from  June  30,  1878,  to  June  30, 
1888,  were  as  follows: 


England 

Fiscal  Year. 

and 

Scotland. 

from  Great 

Ireland. 

from  United 

Wales. 

Britain. 

Kingdom. 

1879,    .... 

24,729 

5,225 

29,954 

20,013 

49,967 

1880 

60,633 

12,640 

73.273 

7 ',603 

144.876 

1881,        .    .    . 

66.204 

15,168 

.81,372 

72.342 

153,714 

1882,    .... 

84,050 

18,937 

102,987 

76,432 

179,419 

1S83,    .... 

64,742 

76,601 

81,486 

158,087 

1884 

56,890 

9,060 

65,950 

63.344 

129,294 

18S5,    .... 

48,487 

9,226 

67,713 

51,795 

109,508 

1886,    .... 

50,803 

12,126 

62,929 

49,619 

112,548 

1887,    .... 

74,679 

18,699 

93.378 

68,370 

161,748 

'^^^ 

83,132 

24.396 

107,528 

72.238 

180,766 

Total,      . 

614,349 

137,336 

751,685 

628,242 

1-379,927 

The  total  immigration  during  this  time,  from  Europe  into  the 
United  States  was,  4,320,676.  The  total  population  of  Europe  is  esti- 
mated at  301,700,000.  The  population  of  the  United  Kingdom  in  1881 
was  35,246,526;  thus  the  British  Isles,  with  11  per  cent  of  the  population 
of  Europe,  .sent  us  32  per  cent  of  our  immigration  from  Europe  during 
the  ten  years  named,  and  not  including  in  this  the  verj' heavy  immigration 
through  Canada.  There  cannot  be  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  chief 
cause  which  has  driven  out  of  England  so  many  of  her  skilled  artisans, 
ingenious  and  enterprising  citizens,  has  been  that  fiscal  policj'  which 
reduces  prices  to  the  lowest  level,  which  destroys  profits,  and  as  profits 
disappear,  drives  down  wages  to  a  starvation  point.  They  have  left  the 
country  to  escape  a  train  of  causes  which  are  calculated  to  "arrest  and 
destroy  the  progress  and  well-being  of  the  nation,  striking  as  it  does  in 
turn,  directly  and  indirectly  at  every  class  of  society,  and  every  depart- 
ment of  industry." 

If  the  free  trade  theories  had  been  carried  out,  and  if  for  each 
import  of  goods  a  corresponding  export  of  home-made  articles  had 
occurred  in  exchange  therefor,  the  loss  to  the  nation  in  spendable  income 
would  not  have  been  so  great  as  it  is;  but  when  "the  imported  article 
destroys  an  equivalent  market  for  home  labor,  an  entirely  different  situa- 
tion is  presented."  Excessive  competing  imports  add  to  the  impoverisli- 
meiit  of  the  country,  and  cause  a  permanent  and  constant  increase  in  the 
number  of  unemployed  laborers.  The  experience  in  England,  as  well  as 
other  countries,  since  i860,  has  overthrown  this  cardinal  principle  of  free 
trade.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  many  Engli.shinen  were  converted  to  the 
theory  under  a  belief  that  as  imports  increased,  exports  to  the  same  amount 
would  necessarily  be  required  to  be  given   in  exchange  for  those  goods 


FBEE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


purchased  of  other  countries.  The  experience  of  the  United  Kingdom 
during  the  past  thirty  j'ears  needs  only  to  be  cited  to  expose  this  fallacy. 
While  imports  have  been  increasing  during  the  whole  free  trade  period, 
since  1874  exports  have  been  declining.  The  balance  of  trade  each  year 
has  gone  against  the  country,  as  exhibited  in  the  following  table,  compiled 
from  the  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  Kingdom: 

Experience  of  United  Kingdom  for  the  Last  Thirty  Years. 


Imports. 

Exports. 

Excess  of  Imports 
over  Exports. 

1864 

fl, 375. 000,000 

$1,063,000,000 

1312,000.000 

1865, 

1.355.000 
1,476,000 
1,376,000 
1,475.000 
1,477,000 
1,516,000 
i,6=;5,ooo 
1,773.000 
i,856,o<x> 
1,850,000 
1,870,000 
1,876,000 
1,972,000 
1,844,000 
1,815,000 
2,056,000 
1,985,000 
2,065,000 
2,134,000 
1,950,000 
1,855,000 
1,749.000 
1, 811,000 
1,938,000 
2,136,000 
2,103,000 
2,177,000 
2,119,000 
2,023,000 

000 

000 
000 
000 

000 
000 
000 

OJO 

000 

000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 

000 
000 

000 
000 

1,094.000 
1,195,000 
1,129,000 
1,139,000 
1,185,000 
1,220,000 
1.418,000 
1,573.000 
1.555.000 
1,488,000 
1.408,000 
1,284,000 
1.262.00.. 

1,244,000 

I,4^2,OCO 

I.4S5.000 

1.533.000 
1,526,000 
1,480.000 
1,357.000 
1,345,000 
1,406,000 
1,493.000 
1.578,000 
1,641,000 
1,546,000 
1,458,000 
1,386,000 

coo 
000 

GOO 

000 

000 
000 
000 

000 
000 

000 
000 

000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 

000 
000 
000 
000 

261,000 
281,000 
247,000 
336,000 
292,000 
296,000 
237,000 
200,000 
301.000 
362,000 
462,000 
592,000 
710,000 
617,000 
571,000 
624,000 
500,000 

608^000 
470,000 
498,000 
404,000 
405,000 
445,000 
558.000 
462.000 
63i,«« 
661,000 
637,000 

1866; 

I.S67 

1868 

1869   ... 

000 
000 
000 

J87I 

000 

1872, 

000 

T873 

000 

1875, 

1876, 

;1S::..::::: 

1879. 

000 
000 
000 

000 

1881; 

18S2, 

18S3 

000 

18S4  ... 

1 886 

18S7, 

1888, . 

^889,   

1S90, 

1891,  -A 

1892,  .  • 

1893 

000 
000 
000 

000 

The  question  arises  how  was  the  balance  of  trade  of  $637,000,000  in 
1893  paid?  That  the  people  of  the  United  Kingdom  purchased  of  other 
countries  that  amount  more  than  they  sold,  cannot  be  questioned.  To 
the  value  of  imports  is  added  freight  charges,  commissions,  and  profits  of 
importers,  yet  this  would  not  account  for  the  difference  in  value  of  $637,- 
000,000.  There  still  remains  a  large  amount  which  must  be  settled, 
either  by  the  export  of  coin,  or  in  some  other  way.  The  British  people 
having  large  sums  invested  in  foreign  countries,  either  as  holders  of 
securities,  or  as  owners  in  business  enterprises,  have  a  large  amount  of 
interest  and  profits  coming  to  them  from  outside.  Now,  in.stead  of  ship- 
ping money  every  year  from  different  parts  of  the  world,  as  long  as  the 


EETUBK  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


ance  of  trade  is  against  the  United  Kingdom,  the  interest  and  profits 
due  Englishmen  are  set  off  against  the  amount  due  each  year  for  the  pur- 
chase of  goods.  In  this  way  the  balance  of  trade  is  indirectly  settled 
with  money.  So  long  as  the  incomes  from  foreign  investments  are  suffi- 
cient to  pay  the  excess  for  imports  over  exports,  the  precious  metals 
would  not  be  exported.  Imports  are  increasing  and  exports  relatively 
declining.  What  then  is  to  happen  when  there  is  still  a  balance  left  to 
be  paid  after  adjusting  all  .such  dealings? 

The  contention  of  the  free  traders  was  .stated  by  the  Times,  as  fol- 
lows :  ' '  We  do  not  get  foreign  goods  for  nothing  and  we  do  not  pay  for 
them  with  money,  we  pay  for  them  with  goods  which  the  foreigner  takes 
in  exchange,  and  those  goods  are  made  or  produced  by  our  own  labor." 
No  one  has  yet  claimed  that  the  English  or  any  other  people  get  goods 
for  nothing.  It  is  admitted  by  all  that  they  are  paid  for  in  some  waj\ 
The  protectionists  have  maintained  that  the  adverse  balance  is  not  paid 
for  or  settled  with  goods,  but  with  money.  The  Fair  Trade  Journal  of 
October  12,  1888,'  in  discussing  this  question  said,  "Mr.  Medley  has 
admitted  that  the  foreigner  is  paid  by  securities,  instead  of  British  goods, 
and  by  doing  so,  he  has  most  certainly -surrendered  the  position  which 
he,  and  the  late  Mr.  Mongredien  and  the  Times  have  labored  .so  hard  to 
establish."  This  admission  does  not  help  their  case,  the  fact  that  in 
order  to  prevent  the  coin  from  being  taken  out  of  the  country,  foreign 
securities  would  be  sold  or  returned  to  settle  the  balance  of  trade,  is  proof 
of  the  position  so  long  held  by  protectionists.  The  adverse  balance  then 
would  represent  goods  purchased  abroad  with  the  accumulated  capital  of 
the  country.  Although  gold  might  be  retained,  the  wealth  of  the  country 
would  be  exhausted  to  buy  articles  which  might  be  made  at  home. 

This  admission,  coming  from  Mr.  Medley,  one  of  the  secretaries  of 
the  Cobden  Club,  and  one  who,  with  Sir  Thomas  Farrer,  has  of  late  been 
its  chief  defender,  is  very  important.  It  yields  one  of  the  most  vital 
points  in  the  controversy. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  it  may  be  found  that  Mr.  Medley  has  stated  the 
cause  of  the  return  of  United  States  securities  which  has  occurred  during 
the  past  two  years.  An  exchange  of  accumulated  wealth  for  consumable 
commodities  is  not  proving  a  paying  business,  especially  when  the  com- 
modities received  di.splace  home  production.  The  theories  now  being 
presented  by  free  traders,  to  show  how  adverse  balances  are  paid,  are  of 
little  importance,  so  long  as  it  has  been  demonstrated,  and  is  now 
admitted,  that  the  "goods  for  goods"  theory  is  unsound.  The  utter 
failure  of  the  original  proposition  presented  by  those  who  introduced 
the  free  trade  policy,  is  most  damaging  to  their  cause.  Those  foreign 
investors,  then  each  year,  receive  their  interest  by  means  of  the 
agricultural  produce  and  manufactured  goods  which   are  brought  into 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY 


Kiigland  and  sold  to  the  English  people.  The  whole  bodj^  of  foreign  ini 
tors,  witli  the  exception  of  the  small  contributions  which  the)'  make  to 
the  English  Government  in  taxes,  and  the  small  amount  of  commodities 
consumed  by  them,  might  as  well  be  residents  of  foreign  countries.  They 
add  nothing  to  the  productive  wealth  of  the  kingdom.  While  their 
capital  is  each  year  estimated  as  a  part  of  the  wealth  of  England,  it  is 
sustaining  and  supporting  industries  in  other  countries. 

In  1846  John  Macgregor  in  his  "Commercial Statistics  "  in  describing 
the  condition  of  Holland  when  her  foreign  trade  was  being  taken  from 
her;  when  she  was  pursuing  that  "  liberal  policy  "  of  free  trade  which  is 
so  frequently  spoken  of  by  certain  economic  writers;  when  her  home 
industries  were  being  crippled  by  British  and  French  competition,  said 
of  her: 

During  the  progress  of  the  decline  of  Holland,  the  low  rate  of  interest,  and  the 
difficulty  of  investing  money  to  any  profit  in  the  country,  diverted  a  great  part 
of  her  specie  and  capital  in  the  way  of  loans  or  to  be  invested  in  the  manufactures, 
trade,  or  securities  of  foreign  States.  This  circumstance  has  seldom  been  proper!}- 
appreciated,  as  an  exhaustive  cause  weakening  the  power  and  energy  of  Holland, 
while  it  nourished  the  growing  industry  and  trade  of  those  countries  which  received 
the  capital  that  left  the  United  Provinces  for  want  of  employment.  There  can  be 
no  greater  symptom  of  decay  than  the  want  of  employment  for  capital  in  a  country 
where  it  had  long  previously  been  actively  and  profitably  invested.  All  commercial 
States  and  cities  which  have  declined,  exhibited  previously  this  symptom  of 
approaching  decay.  Holland,  from  1670  to  1814,  affords  an  example  from  which, 
on  this  subject,  as  well  as  many  others,  useful  instruction  may  be  gathered.' 

History  is  repeating  itself.  Ever)-  word  uttered  by  Mr.  Macgregor 
with  reference  to  Holland,  can  truthfully  be  said  of  England  to-day.  The 
same  changes  are  taking  place  in  England  which  Mr.  Macgregor  points 
out,  and  unless  arrested,  the  same  end  will  be  reached.  Holland 
changed  her  policy  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  by  a 
sy.stem  of  protection  to  agriculture,  she  is  to-day  supplying  England 
with  large  quantities  of  food,  although  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  is  car- 
ried on  under  great  difficulties. 

The  people  of  a  decaying  nation  may  for  a  long  time  live  on  past 
accumulations  without  exhibiting  any  very  striking  outward  signs  of  the 
change  which  is  taking  place.  The  gradual  year  by  year  absorption  of 
savings  must  ultimately  destroy  private  fortunes  and  reduce  the  middle 
cla.sses  to  a  lower  level.  Vast  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few  citizens, 
while  it  makes  an  outward  show  of  opulence,  may  indicate  past  acquisi- 
tions rather  than  present  prosperity.  When  the  Roman  Empire  was 
decaying  the  wealth  of  the  world  was  centred  in  the  hands  of  its  rulers 
while  its  fields  were  being  cultivated  by  slaves.  The  free  trade  writers 
point  to  the  foreign  investments  of  English  capital  as  an  indication  of 
vast  accumulated  wealth  and  prosperity  when  in  fact  it  indicates  indus- 
trial decline. 

'Vol.  I.,  p.  831. 


SETUIiX  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

England  is  the  only  countr3'  in  the  world  that  boasts  of  the  num- 
ber of  foreign  investments  and  vast  sums  of  the  capital  of  her  people 
which  are  devoted  to  sustaining  industries  and  employment  of  labor  in 
foreign  States.  The  protected  industries  of  the  United  States  and  the  Con- 
tinent have  attracted  British  capital,  while  it  is  being  withdrawn  from 
industries  at  home.  Capital  withdrawn  from  productive  industries,  in 
the  United  Kingdom,  is  being  u,sed  on  the  Continent  to  build  up  strong 
competitors,  who  manufacture  goods  formerly  made  in  England  and  force 
their  surplus  into  neutral  channels,  thus  increasing  competition  which  must 
ultimately  capture  a  still  larger  share  of  the  world's  markets.  Prosperous 
countries,  like  prosperous  cities  and  villages,  and  enterprising  men,  bor- 
row capital  to  engage  in  busine.ss.  Unprosperous  countries  send  their 
capital  into  foreign  parts  to  seek  borrowers.  Professor  Bonamy  Price 
speaking  upon  this  question  said,  "There  remains  lastly  to  notice  one 
more  powerful  begetter  of  impoverishment,  loans  granted  to  foreign  coun- 
tries. For  a  period  now  extending  beyond  ten  j'ears,  the}-  have  been 
given  away  with  a  profusion  truly  astonishing."  In  earlier  times  it 
was  a  national  benefit  to  invest  English  capital  in  the  building  of  rail- 
ways which  opened  means  of  communication,  and  developed  countries  to 
receive  British  goods.  The  withdrawal  of  capital  from  the  productive 
industries  of  the  country,  for  investment  in  competing  countries,  can  but 
add  to  those  causes  which  are  undermining  their  conunercial  supremacy. 
The  removal  of  whole  manufacturing  plants  to  the  United  States  and 
protective  countries  on  the  Continent,  is  a  part  of  the  emigration  of 
capital  which  accompanies  labor  seeking  conditions  under  which  profita- 
ble industries  may  be  carried  on. 

It  seems  that  the  protectionists  of  England  are  beginning  to  learn 
who  pays  the  duty.  It  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  Cobdenism  that  the 
tariff  is  a  tax,  and  enhances  the  price  of  commodities  to  the  extent  of  the 
duty  levied.  This  was  the  idea  of  President  Cleveland  when  he  urged 
in  his  message  that  the  duty  was  added  to  the  price.  It  seems  that  he 
has  not  learned  that  English  manufacturers,  in  order  to  hold  markets, 
reduce  their  prices  as  tariffs  in  the  United  States  are  imposed  or 
raised.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  prices  did  not  rise  after  the 
passage  of  the  McKinley  law.  British  manufacturers  sold  to  us  cheaper 
in  order  to  hold  our  markets.  Although  this  scheme  was  i-.i  part  suc- 
cessful in  holding  trade,  it  prevented  the  manufacturers  of  the  United 
States  from  increasing  wages  and  fully  an.swers  the  taunting  argument 
of  free  traders  that  although  duties  were  made  higher,  there  was  not  a 
corresponding  advance  in  wages.  How  could  there  be  when  the  foreign 
competitor  lowered  the  prices  of  his  wares,  and  still  waged  his  war 
against  our  industries.  This  question  is  fully  and  ably  di.scussed  in  the 
following  article  which  appeared  in  the  Fair  Trade  Journal,  March  i, 
1889: 


FKEE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAJLUBE. 


'Who  pays  the  import   duty 


ever  the   burni 


questi 


and  one  of  the 


chief  wheels  on  which  the  free  trade  controversy  must  always  turn.  We  have,  of 
course,  never  left  our  readers  in  the  dark,  that  the  solution  lies  in  discarding  all 
hard  and  fast  lines,  and  contenting  ourselves  with  the  fact,  that  the  consumer 
may  or  may  not  pay  them  according  to  circumstances.  If  the  possibilities  of 
producing  sufficient  for  home  use  at  home  be  great,  then  the  probabilities  of  the 
foreign  producer  who  seeks  a  market  being  obliged  to  pay  part  or  the  whole  of  any  im- 
port duty  levied  there,  is  the  greater.  There  is,  indeed,  a  manifest  inconsistency  in 
free  traders  complaining,  as  all  do,  of  hostile  tariffs,  if  it  were  accurate  that  it  is 
the  consuming  importers  who  are  injured.  If  it  be  true  that  an  import  duty  neces- 
.sarily  raises  the  price  to  the  extent  of  the  dutyormore,assomeassert,  it  follows  that  the 
foreign  exporter  will  continue  to  get  his  previous  free-on-board  price,  and,  except 
as  far  as  higher  prices  sometimes  involve  a  proportionate  restriction  of  purchases  is 
therefore  not  damnified.  But  we  venture  to  say  that  such  is  not  the  experience  of 
exporting  manufacturers  and  merchants  when  they  have  to  arrange  their  prices 
to  allow  for  duties  imposed  by  their  customers  abroad.  They  find  themselves  either 
as  a  rule  shut  out  or  compelled  to  lower  their  quotations  and  doubtless  also- 
the  case  of  manufactures — to  lower  the  quality  or  intrinsic  value  of  the  exports 
to  meet  the  reduced  price.  A  remarkable  confirmation  of  this  truth  reaches  us  thii 
week  from  the  Forest  of  Dean  in  the  report  of  a  speech  recently  made  at  the  half 
yearly  meeting  of  the  coal  and  iron  ore  owners  and  of  those  interested  as  renters  of 
mineral  and  landed  properties  from  the  woods  and  forests.  In  response  to  the  toast 
of  "Manufacturing  Industries,  "  the  two  speakers  who  replied  touched  specially  on 
the  tin  plate  trade  which  is  one  of  the  few  industries  in  the  kingdom  undergoing 
considerable  development,  simply  because — from  its  nature — it  is  not  exposed  to 
the  action  of  unrestricted  foreign  competition  in  the  home  market.  But,  thanks  to 
the  hostile  tariffs,  its  development  in  other  quarters  is  not  quite  so  happy. 
Taylor,  who  was  one  of  those  who  responded,  said : 

' '  There  is  no  trade  in  the  world  that  could  show  such  remarkable  figures.  He 
did  not  refer  to  prices,  but  through  good  times  and  bad,  the  tin  plate  trade  had 
gone  on  developing  steadily  and  regularly  for  twenty  years  past.  Each  year  showed 
an  improvement  upon  the  previous  one.  He  wished  makers  would  only  be  content  to 
let  it  remain  so.  They  had  no  competitors,  and  in  such  a  case  would  be  able  to  com- 
mand their  own  price.  [Hear,  hear.]  The  only  dark  cloud  was  in  America,  in 
consequence — so  far  as  they  were  concerned — of  the  unfortunate  election  of  General 
Harrison.  As  the  presidential  election  had  turned  out,  all  prospect  of  the  very  high 
tariff  of  55.  per  box  on  imported  tin  boxes  being  taken  off,  had  vanished;  and  the 
prospects  now  were  that  the  duty  would  be  increased.  Party  influences  were  being 
brought  to  bear  in  favor  of  so  raising  the  duty  as  to  shut  out  English  manufactures 
of  tin  from  a  chance  of  America.  He  argued,  however  that  might  be,  England 
had  held  the  trade  in  her  own  hands  for  fifteen  years  past,  and  if  new  difficulties 
arose  they  must  be  prepared  to  deal  with  them.  [Hear,  hear.  ]  In  the  meantime 
it  was  most  sincerely  to  be  hoped  that  the  efforts  now  being  made  would  be  frus- 
trated, and  that  the  better  feeling  of  the  country  would  be  looked  to.  It  was 
monstrous  that  such  a  very  large  industry  should  be  crushed,  just  for  the  sake  of  gain 
for  the  tin  manufacturer  of  the  United  States.  [Hear,  hear.  ]  T/iere  was  fro  doubt  that 
English  manufacturers  would  have  to  reduce  the  cost  0/ production  if  they  were  to 
maintain  their  hold  of  the  American  trade,  and  he  knew  of  no  other  source  from 
which  relief  could  be  got  than  the  rate  of  wages. ' ' 

From  this  language  it  will  be  seen  that  the  speaker  is  manifestly  a  free  trader, 
and  his  evidence  is  therefore  all  the  more  valuable.  He  still  clings  to  the  idea  that 
protection  in  the  United  States  is  kept  up  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturers  of 
tin  plate,  omitting  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  better  employment  of  labor  is 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


always  the  condition  precedent  of  prosperity  to  the  manufacturers  themselves.  And 
yet  at  the  same  time  he  practically  confesses  that  the  consumers  of  tin  plate  in  the 
United  States  are  not  those  who  pay  the  import  duties — or,  in  other  words,  that  the 
prices  are  not  proportionately  raised  by  the  duties — for,  "to  maintain  their  hold  of 
the  American  trade, ' '  Mr.  Taylor  says  that  the  cost  of  production  must  be  reduced, 
i.  e.,  prices  lowered  to  pay  the  American  duty;  and  to  effect  this,  "he  knew  of  no 
other  source  from  which  relief  could  be  got  than  the  rate  of  wages. "  Surely,  if 
this  language  be  not  significant,  we  know  not  what  is.' 

The  practice  of  reducing  the  cost  of  production  and  lowering  prices, 
in  order  to  sell  goods  in  protectionist  countries  was  followed  by  the  British 
manufacturers  as  early  as  1843.  It  is  a  part  of  the  system  of  industrial 
warfare,  which  has  constantly  been  waged  against  the  labor  and  capital 
of  other  countries. 

In  speaking  of  the  French  ordinance  in  1843.     Mr.  Gladstone  said: 

It  imposed  an  additional  duty  on  the  importation  of  linen  3-arns;  that  addi- 
tional duty  must  be  paid  by  somebody;  it  is,  in  part,  paid  by  the  French  consumer, 
it  is  in  part  paid,  perhaps,  in  premium  to  the  smuggler,  but  it  is  also  paid  in  gteal 
part  by  the  mamifacturers.  By  its  effect  his  profits  are  diminished,  and  his pozver 
to  pay  ivages  was  diminished.  It  is  true  that  yarns  continue  to  be  made,  but  why? 
'Becanse  people  must  live,  because  the  operatives  from  the  abundance  of  the  supply 
of  labor  as  compared  with  the  demand  for  it,  must  work  for  zvhat  their  employers 
call  afford  to  give.  I  will  not  go  into  any  detail  with  respect  to  the  operation  of 
the  tariff  of  Germany,  but  I  apprehend  that  it  is  much  the  same.  ...  I  under- 
stand that  the  increase  of  duties  by  the  German  tariff,  which  before  the  change 
were  excessively  high,  and  which  are  now  enormously  high,  has  not  had  the  effect 
of  stopping  the  exportations  from  this  country,  but  still  it  has  necessarily  had  the 
effect  of  diminishing  profits  and  wages  in  this  country,  and  has"  injured  thereby  our 
operative  population. — "Hansard,"  Vol.  66,  pp.  503-4.2 

The  policy  of  legislating  for  the  benefit  of  the  consumer,  and  ha^•ing 
no  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  producer,  has  been  fully  tested  during 
the  past  forty  years.  The  absolute  ruin  which  must  visit  any  nation  \\hicli 
commits  itself  to  this  unwise  course  is  demonstrated  by  the  results  which 
have  followed.  The  fallacious  argument  of  free  traders  that  it  is  the  wisest 
policy  to  remove  all  restrictions  in  order  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  market, 
must  share  the  fate  of  all  free  trade  principles. 

The  following  very  clear  and  able  treatment  of  the  question  appeared 
in  the  Fair  Trade  Journal,  December  19,  1890: 

The  benefit  of  consumers,  who  are  the  larger  class,  at  the  expense  of  producers, 
who  are  the  smaller  class,  conduces  to  the  welfare  and  enrichment  of  the  nation. 
Is  this  so?  Now  the  agriculturists  are  a  limited  class,  the  consumers  of  agricultural 
produce  are  the  whole  nation ;  therefore,  according  to  this  view,  to  supersede  all 
native  agricultural  produce  by  the  importation  of  cheaper  foreign  agricultural 
produce  would  be  a  benefit  to  the  nation  at  large.  The  whole  male  portion  of  the 
population  wear  hats;  the  whole  female  portion,  bonnets;  the  makers  of  hats  and 
bonnets  are  a  limited  class;  the  wearers,  the  whole  nation;  therefore  to  supersede 
the  entire  home  manufacture  of  hats  and  bonnets  by  means  of  the  importation  ot 
cheap  foreign  hats  and  bonnets  would  be  a  national  boon.  The  entire  population. 
1  Kail-  Trade  Journal,  Vol   IV.,  p.  290.       =l"air  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  V.,  p.  471. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


\ 


male  and  female,  wear  boots  and  shoes;  the  makers  of  boots  and  shoes  area  limited 
class;  the  wearers,  the  whole  nation  ;  therefore  to  supersede  the  entire  home  boot  and 
shoe  making  business  by  the  importation  of  Cheaper  foreign  boots  and  shoes  would 
be  a  boon  and  a  source  of  wealth  to  the  nation  at  large.  And  thus  we  might  proceed 
through  the  whole  category  of  trade,  extinguishing  one  after  another,  the  silk 
manufacture,  the  cotton  manufacture,  the  woolen  manufacture,  the  linen  manufac- 
ture, the  iron  and  steel  industries,,  the  china,  glass,  and  crockery  industries,  etc. , 
from  regard  to  the  benefit  of  consumers,  who  form  in  all  these  cases  the  larger 
portion  of  the  population,  and  then,  when  all  this  was  done,  what  would  be  the 
result?  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  free  trade  school,  the  nation  ought  then  to 
be  in  possession  of  unexampled  prosperity  and  enormous  wealth,  having  been 
enriched  time  after  time  by  each  successive  boon  of  foreign  cheapness.  Would  it 
be  so?  The  stern  reality  which  would  confront  us  would  be  something  verv' 
different.  Rent  of  land  and  of  houses  would  at  once  cease,  and  the  occupiers  of 
land  and  of  houses  would  be  paupers.  Shares  in  railways,  waterworks,  gasworks, 
and  canals  would  no  longer  be  worth  a  sixpence.  Every  British  investment  would 
be  worthless.  The  payment  of  wages  would  be  a  thing  of  the  past.  Local  rates 
might  be  demanded  for  local  purposes,  but  there  would  be  no  answer  to  the  demand. 
Imperial  taxation  would  yield  no  revenue;  and  the  government  of  the  country, 
carried  on  by  its  instrumentality,  would  be  at  an  end.  The  nation  would  be  bankrupt. 
Now,  why  should  these  results  occur?  Because  the  sole  source  of  a  nation's  income 
is  industrial  production.  Industrial  production  being  destroyed,  the  nation's 
income  would  be  annihilated.  The  only  exception  would  be  that  of  income 
arising  from  foreign  investments,  and  that  would  speedily  disappear.  Such  then 
would  be  the  effect  of  carrying  out  in  practice  to  its  utmost  limit  the  theory  that 
the  benefit  of  consumers,  the  larger  class,  at  the  expense  of  the  producers,  the 
smaller  class,  is  a  national  gain.  If  the  theory  were  true,  the  result  would  be  an 
enormous  accession  to  the  wealth  of  the  nation.  But  the  actual  result  is  national 
ruin.  This  result  proves  the  absolute  falsehood  of  the  theor}\  It  may  be  said  that 
to  suppose  the  destruction  of  all  these  industries  is  to  suppose  an  impossibility. 
But  that  does  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  argument.  The  argument  itself  is  both 
legitimate  and  conclusive;  and  by  showing  what  would  be  the  practical  results  of 
the  theory  if  applied  to  all  the  industries  of  the  country,  it  merely  exhibits  the 
character  and  the  tendencies  of  that  theory  more  distinctly  than  could  be  done  if  it 
were  applied  only  to  a  single  industry. 

The  extinction  of  all  the  industries  of  a  country  annihilates  the  income  of  that 
country;  the  extinction  of  each  particular  industry  annihilates  a  portion  of  its 
income.  So  also  with  the  partial  instead  of  the  total  extinction  of  an  industry.  If 
foreign  silks,  for  instance,  are  sold  in  the  English  market  lo  per  cent  cheaper  than 
home-made  silks,  while  common  opinion  supposes  that  the  country  gains  lo  per 
cent  by  their  purchase,  the  fact  is  that,  while  the  country  saves  lo  per  cent  in 
expenditure,  it  loses  loo  per  cent  in  income,  thus  incurring  a  net  loss  of  90  per 
cent  by  the  transaction.  Production  represents  income ;  consumption,  expenditure; 
and  a  country  which  legislates  in  the  interest  of  consumers  is  in  the  position  of  a 
man  who,  in  order  to  enrich  himself,  devises  a  scheme  by  which  he  reduces  his 
expenditure  by  /700  per  annuui,  but,  at  the  same  time,  reduces  his  income  by  /'700 
or  /Soo  per  annum.  Is  the  plan  a  very  wise  one?  Yet  the  late  Sir  Robert  Peel  was 
himself  deceived  by  this  fallacy,  and  urged  it  in  support  of  the  free  trade  measures 
which  he  was  passing.  The  theory,  notwithstanding  the  extensive  belief  which  it 
commands,  is  a  baseless  superstition  ;  and,  on  whatever  other  foundation  free  trade 
may  rest,  let  it  never  be  defended  on  the  false  ground  that  by  benefiting  the  con- 
sumer at  the  expense  of  the  producer  it  benefits  the  nation  at  large.  The  interests 
of  consumers  are  not  paramount  to  those  of  producers ;  but  the  interests  of  producers  I 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


are  most  certainly  paramount  to  those  of  consumers;  it  is  production  which  is  the 
support  and  mainstay  of  a  country  and  the  encouragement,  the  judicious  encourage- 
ment,  and   safe-guarding  of  produ<Jtion,   is  the  first  economic  duty  of  every  State.' 

When  we  consider  the  injury  which  has  been  inflicted  upon  producers 
in  England,  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  consumers,  the  fallacy  of  one  of  the 
cardinal  free  trade  maxims  is  exposed.  It  was  alleged  that  the  govern- 
ment should  have  regard  for  the  consumer's,  and  let  the  producers  take  care 
of  themselves.  This  proposition  has  been  urged  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  other  countries.  It  has  found  favor  in  only  one  country, 
and  that  is  England.  The  test  which  has  been  made  of  free  trade,  with 
all  its  consequences,  the  impoverishment  of  the  producers  which  has  been 
brought  about,  fully  demonstrates  that  the  wiser  policy  is  for  the  nation 
to  take  care  of  the  producers  and  let  the  consumers  take  care  of  them- 
selves. It  is  through  the  producing  classes,  through  their  energy  and 
exertion,  that  wealth  is  brought  into  exi.stence  and  is  accumulated.  It  is 
by  the  earnings  and  incomes  of  the  great  masses  of  the  people  of  all 
countries,  that  savings  and  accumulations  are  made.  Upon  the  size  of 
such  incomes  rests  their  ability  to  purchase  homes,  educate  their  children, 
support  their  families  in  comfort  and  decency,  and  become  elevated  and 
improved.  A  policy  which  reduced  the  incomes  of  the  laboring  population 
so  low  that  at  all  times  they  are  kept  down  to  bare  subsistence,  cannot  be 
compensated  for  to  a  nation  by  the  benefits  which  those  living  on  fixed 
incomes  may  derive  from  ' '  cheapness. 

We  have  in  Great  Britain  a  real  example  of  restricted  corfimerce 
arising,  not  from  ' '  barriers  ' '  and  ' '  hindrances  ' '  raised  by  protection,  but 
through  the  application  of  free  trade  dogmas.  The  following  from  an 
eminent  English  writer,  most  aptly  illustrates  the  point: 

I  will  tell  you  what  means  restricted  commerce ;  men  being  out  of  employment, 
who  are  producing  nothing,  and  who  cannot  exchange  because  they  have  nothing 
wherewith  to  make  an  exchange.  As  all  cpmmerce  is  exchange,  want  of  opportu- 
nity to  exchange  means  restricted  commerce.  We  have  work-people  out  of 
employment,  and  work-people  working  at  low  wages  and  we  have  restricted  com- 
merce.—David  Evans,   in  Fair  Trade  Journal.''' 

From  1850  to  1870,  English  stati.sticians  industriously  put  out  long 
colunnis  of  figures  taken  from  the  official  records  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, showing  the  exports  and  imports  of  the  country,  exhibiting  the 
marvelous  growth  of  trade;  and  of  course,  in  all  instances,  attributing 
this  to  the  influence  of  free  trade.  It  is  most  significant  that  these  calcu- 
lations have  ceased.  We  hear  nothing  from  them  upon  the  decline  of  their 
exports  since  1874.  They  are  silent  upon  the  vast  quantities  of  manu- 
factured goods  which  each  year  find  their  way  into  England.  The 
destruction  of  agriculture  is  not  mentioned.  The  vast  body  of  unemployed 
laborers,  the  loes  of  profits,  and  the  unceasing  complaints  of  manufac- 
turers and  tradesmen,  are  nol  referred  to;  but  the  work  of  the  professional 


FREE  TBADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


compiler  of  statistics  has  by  no  means  abated.  Mr.  Mulhall,  Mr.  Robert 
Giffen,  Sir  Dudle}-  Baxter,  and  many  others,  have  turned  their  attention 
to  a  new  field  of  statistical  calculations.  Everj-  few  j-ears  figures  are 
presented  to  show  that  a  vast  accumulation  and  growth  of  wealth  in 
England  has  taken  place.  The  figures  put  out  are  practically  worth- 
less. In  taking  the  census  each  ten  years,  the  British  Government 
does  not  go  beyond  an  enumeration  of  its  population.  There  are  no  official 
sources  of  information  from  which  the  whole  wealth  and  incomes  of  the 
English  people  can  be  a.scertained.  Even  the  wage  rate  of  various  sorts  of 
laborers  is  a  constant  subject  of  controversy  and  dispute.  The  lack  of 
employment,  working  on  short  time  which  so  universally  prevails,  makes 
it  impossible  to  obtain  a  .statement  of  the  earnings  of  the  laboring  popula- 
tion. The  chief  sources  of  information  upon  which  statisticians  base  their 
opinions  are  the  a.ssessment  of  property  and  receipts  from  income  taxes. 
But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  property  in  England  is  held  by  a 
very  few  people  and  that  incomes  of  less  than  $750  are  exempt  from  the 
income  tax,  so  there  is  no  way  by  which  reliable  computations  can  be 
made  of  the  incomes  of  at,least  thirty-four  out  of  the  thirty-eight  millions  of 
population.  Statements  of  the  wealth  of  6,000,000  of  property  owners, 
and  more  especially  of  the  accunuilations  of  wealth  from  profits,  are  largely 
guess  work.  The  calculations  which  have  been  made  of  incomes  and  the 
accumulations  of  wealth,  by  Mr.  Mulhall,  Mr.  Giffen  and  others,  are  put 
out  by  tlieni  simply  as  estimates,  while  the\-  are  published  throughout  the 
world  in  free  trade  books  and  newspapers,  as  official  and  reliable. 

Professor  lycone  I^evi  concedes  the  unreliability  of  the  estimates  of  the 
incomes  of  the  working  classes,  made  by  himself.  Sir  Dudley  Baxter,  Mr. 
Giffen,  Mr.  Mulhall  and  Mr.  Jeans.  In  excusing  the  difference  in  calcu- 
lations made  by  these  men,  he  says: 

The  difficulties  attending  such  inquiries  principally  arising  from  the  want  of  a 
common  basis  as  to  the  description  of  persons  to  be  included,  under  the  designation 
of  working  classes,  what  is  to  be  taken  as  the  rate  of  wages,  when  piece  work 
prevails,  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  of  over-time,  the  addition  of  the  money  value 
of  board,  lodging,  clothing,  allotment  of  land,  and  other  allowances.  Whatever  be 
the  record,  however,  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  any  inquiries  of  this  nature,  we 
cannot  pretend  to  attain  to  any  nicety  of  precision,  but  must  be  satisfied  with  as 
near  an  approach  as  possible  to  the  real  facts  of  the  case. ' 

In  .speaking  of  the  difficulties  met  with,  in  attempting  to  arrive  at 
the  annual  income  of  the  United  Kingdom,  he  says: 

The  problem  is  difiBcult  to  solve,  because  many  branches  of  income  defy  any 
valuation,  because  different  branches  of  income  have  not  the  same  value,  because 
such  values  are  subject  to  constant  fluctuations,  and  because  when  we  have  estimated 
the  income  of  the  different  classes  of  the  people,  their  aggregate  will  not  repre- 
sent the  income  of  the  nation  as  a  whole ;  the  income  of  one  section  as  in  the  cases 
of  the  professional  classes,  the  domestic  service,  etc.,  being  in  reality  the 
•  Wages  and  Earnings  of  the  Working  Classes,  p.  i6. 


BErrilK  TO  FUEE  TRADE. 


expeuditure   of   another  section.     All  attempts,   moreover,   to  estimate  the 

of  the  nation  can  only  be  of  an  approximate  character.     Enough,   indeed,   if  we  can 

come  within  a  measurable  distance  of  the  truth.' 

Beset  with  all  these  difficulties,  how  then  can  the  world  accept  the 
guess  work  of  the  free  trade  statistician  as  evidence  of  wealth  in  the  United 
Kingdom  of  the  upper  and  middle  classes,  or  of  the  earnings  of  the  labor- 
ing population?  A  nation  so  devoted  to  the  collection  of  statistical 
information  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  of  a  certain  character,  certainly  does 
not  neglect  to  make  similar  official  investigations  at  home  without  .some 
grave  cause.  The  decline  of  agriculture,  the  loss  of  profits  in  manufactur- 
ing, the  reduction  in  wages,  both  in  piece  and  time  work,  the  lack  of 
employment,  the  vast  body  of  totally  unemployed,  the  widespread  vagrancy 
and  pauperism  which  prevails  everj'where,  certainly  do  not  afford  an 
inviting  field  for  a  searching  official  investigation  of  the  material  condition 
of  their  population.  It  is  perfectly  safe  to  a.ssert  that,  if  universal  pros- 
perity prevailed,  if  an  official  investigation  of  the  wealth,  incomes  and 
industries  of  the  United  Kingdom  would  make  a  good  showing  for  free 
trade,  it  would  be  the  first  undertaking  upon  which  the  free  trade  party 
in  England  would  enter.  The  fact  that  such  investigation  is  neglected 
by  the  government,  that  the  world  is  left  to  rely  on  the  mere  estimates  of 
those  professional  statisticians  who  make  calculations  for  the  purpose  of 
bolstering  up  a  political  party,  should  be  taken  as  a  condemnation  of  free 
trade  theories. 

A  very  valuable  paper  was  read  by  Mr.  Lloyd  Jones,  before  the 
Industrial  Remunerative  Conference  in  1886,^  in  which  he  exposed  the  inac- 
curacies of  the  estimates  of  the  incomes  of  the  English  people.  He  showed 
that  Profes.sor  Leone  Levi  estimated  the  earnings  of  the  working  classes 
at  $2,090,000,000;  that  two  years  after  this.  Sir  Dudley  Baxter,  in  his 
work  on  the  "Taxation  of  the  United  Kingdom,"  estimated  that  the 
incomes  of  the  same  classes  were$i  ,625,000,000,  or  $465,000,000  less  than 
the  estimates  made  by  Profes.sor  Leone  Levi ;  he  gave  the  incomes  of  the 
upper  and  middle  classes  at  $2,450,000,000,  or  $705,000,000  more  than 
Professor  Leone  Levi.  He  also  pointed  out  tiie  wide  difference  between  the 
calculations  of  the  others  named.  Mr.  Mulhall,  in  his  "  Directory-  of  Sta- 
tistics," page  276,  concluded  that  the  annual  incomes  of  the  upper  and 
middle  classes  were  $4,000,000,000,  or  $1 ,640,000,000  more  than  Sir  Dudley 
Baxter,  and  $2,345,000,000  more  than  Professor  Leone  Levi.  A  slight 
difference  in  time  must,  of  course,  be  taken  into  account,  but  this  does 
not  help  the  matter.  Professor  Kolb,  the  German  .statistician,  recognized 
the  unreliablene.ss  of  these  figures  and  said  that  "all  such  estimates  are,  as  a 
matter  of  cour.se,  very  uncertain."  The  untrustworthiness  of  the  state- 
ments of  free 'trade  stati.sticians  upon  questions  of  this  character,  is  well 
understood   in  England.     Mr.  Lacey  says  : 

1  Wages  and  Earnings  of  the  Working  Classes,  p.  +4.      -  Report  of  Proceedings,  p.  35. 


FEEE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


One  would  think  that  these  repeated  exposures  would  finally  discredit  them,  but 
no  such  thing ;  they  crop  up  in  the  columns  of  the  newspapers  week  after  week,  and 
are  hurled  at  the  heads  of  philanthropists  with  as  much  assurance  of  their  elBcacy  in 
demolishing  those  misguided  persons,  as  though  their  accuracy  were  universally 
admitted.  And  Mr.  Giffen  himself,  when  a  fact  reveals  itself,  when  it  gives  a  table 
of  statistics  an  appearance  of  telling  against  his  views  of  the  case,  says,  "This  is 
only  one  illustration  of  the  caution  with  which  such  figures  must  be  used." — Jour- 
nal of  Statis.  Society,  Vol.  46,  p.  615 ;  but  he  had  no  word  of  caution  to  give  when 
the  figures  apparently  favor  his  own  view.' 

It  is  upon  these  unreliable  estimates  that  free  traders  endeavor  to 
bolster  up  their  theories,  and  to  furnish  proof  that  the  commer- 
cial and  middle  classes  are  accumulating  wealth  even  in  times  of  great 
business  depression.  Statistics  are  very  valuable  when  resting  on  reliable 
and  trustworthy  facts,  but  when  the  conclusions  are  based  upon  sheer 
guess  work,  without  in  the  slightest  degree  questioning  the  integrity 
of  the  authors,  their  calculations  can  be  thrown  aside  and  utterly  repu- 
diated as  furnishing  no  trustworthy  information  either  of  the  wealth  or 
the  accumulations  of  the  small  number  of  people  in  England  who  bj'  any 
possilsility  can  prosper  under  the  policy  of  free  trade. 

Mr.  Giffen  in  estimating  the  incomes  from  foreign  investments  "set 
down  $200,000,000  as  the  foreign  income  omitted  from  the  income  tax 
returns.""  "This  one  fact,"  says  Mr.  Jones,  "vitiates  all  arguments  as  to 
the  incomes  of  the  monied  classes." 

While  Mr.  Giffen  points  to  the  increased  incomes  of  the  monied 
classes  as  disclosed  by  the  income  tax  returns,  Mr.  Algernon  West,  chair- 
man of  the  Board  of  Inland  Revenue,  in  his  evidence  before  the  Royal 
Commission,^  accounts  for  this  increase  in  great  part,  "for  gradually 
improving  the  administration  every  year." 

From  the  evidence  of  Mr.  West  it  was  apparent  that  the  Government 
had  ' '  succeeded  in  making  more  people  pay  the  tax,  and  that  it  was  doubtful 
if  there  had  been  any  improvement  in  the  incomes  from  trades."  It  was 
certainly  established  beyond  a  question,  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
increase  as  shown  by  the  official  returns,  arose  from  more  efficient  service 
in  making  collections.  Even  if  it  should  be  conceded  that  the  incomes 
of  the  upper  and  middle  classes  have  grown  at  the  rate  contended  for  by 
Mr.  Giffen  and  others,  it  proves  but  little.  The  vast  incomes  of  the 
nobility  of  the  country  make  a  good  showing. 

Two-thirds  of  the  whole  of  England  and  Wales  are  held  by  10,200  persons; 
two-thirds  of  the  whole  of  Scotland  are  held  by  only  233  persons:  two-thirds  of  the 
whole  of  Ireland  are  held  by  1942  persons.  The  House  of  Lords  owns  more  than 
a  third  of  the  area  of  Great  Britain.  Two-thirds  of  all  of  it  really  belong  to  great 
peers  and  commoners,  whose  estates  are  continually  devouring  _the  small  estates 
surrounding  them. 


'  Liberty 


=  Essays 


Report,  p.  58. 


KETUBN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


The  incomes  and  inherited  estates  of  this  class,  are  counted  by  Mr. 
Giffen  and  set  forth  as  a  part  of  the  accumulated  wealth  of  the  people, 
and  pointed  to  by  free  traders,  as  an  indication  of  national  prosperity. 
Mr.  Lacey,  in  enumerating  some  of  the  incomes  of  this  class,  says: 

Thus,  the  Duke  of  Portland  inherited  /i, 500, coo, and  has  besides  an  income  of 
;fio8,ooo  per  annum  from  land,  the  Earl  of  Dudley  inherited  ;fi, 000,000,  and 
receives  ;f 1 24, 000  from  land;  the  Duke  of  Westminster  inherited  /'8oo,ooo,  and 
receives  ^260,000  from  land;  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  has  ;^27o,ooo  from  land;  the 
Dukeof  Buccleuch,  ;^23i,ooo;  and  the  Marquis  of  Bute,  ^232,000.  Thetotal  income 
of  the  Duke  of  Westminster  equals  that  of  7500  agricultural  laborers,  representing 
37,500  people,  one-nineteenth  of  the  entire  population  of  the  United  Kingdom! 
The  united  incomes  of  the  persons  above-mentioned  who  possess  upward  of  ^250,000 
in  personal  property,  and  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Lords — less  than  a  thousand 
persons — amount  at  least  to  ^24,000,000  annually;  viz.,  incomes  from  ;f  203, 200, 000. 
the  total  amount  of  fortunes  aforesaid,  at  5  per  cent  (which  is  far  under  what  busi- 
ness men  obtain)  /io,i6o,ooo;  the  land  rental  of  the  House  of  Lords  ;f  13,000,000, 
and  incomes  from  personal  property  known  to  have  been  inherited  by  the  members 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  not  included  in  the  above  list  (;f  11,000,000)  £=,50,000, 
as  the  amount  of  personal  property  inherited  by  the  peers  is  only  known  in  about 
one  hundred  cases,  and  as  the  three  hundred  and  eighty  "millionaires"  nearly  all 
possess  land  as  well,  the  total  income  of  these  1000  persons  is  probably  over 
^30,000,000  per  annum — equal  to  the  united  wages  of  750,000  agricultural  laborers, 
more  than  one-tenth  of  the  male  adults  of  England  and  Wales.' 

It  is  in  great  part  from  the  vast  accumulations  of  inherited  estates 
which  have  been  growing  for  long  periods  that  we  have  been  told  of  the  great 
wealth  of  the  country.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  free  trade  statisticians 
in  their  system  of  bookkeeping,  present  only  one  side  of  the  ledger.  If 
they  should  place  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  page  the  annual  loss  in  the 
incomes  of  the  agricultural  population ;  the  decline  of  over  one  billion  of 
value  in  real  estate ;  the  loss  to  the  nation  of  over  seven  millions  of  skilled 
artisans  and  sturdy  yeomanry,  who  have  been  compelled  to  leave  the 
country;  the  large  amount  of  capital  which  has  been  withdrawn  and 
driven  to  foreign  countries  to  seek  investment ;  the  large  number  of  man- 
ufacturing establishments  that  have  been  removed  from  the  country  and 
found  shelter  on  the  Continent  and  in  the  United  States;  the  losses  which 
are  sustained  by  English  people  through  lack  of  employment,  caused  bj^ 
the  annual  import  of  over  one  billion  dollars  of  consumable  competing 
commodities;  the  increased  tax  rate  which  goes  to  the  support  of  paupers ; 
the  con.stant  drain  upon  labor  organizations  to  support  members  of  their 
own  bodies  out  of  employment ;  the  vast  sums  contributed  by  about  seventy 
organized  .societies  of  private  per.sons  for  the  relief  of  destitution  in  the 
country ;  the  loss  of  profits  to  manufacturers ;  the  few  people  who  own  real 
estate  in  England;  those  who  live  on  foreign  investments  and  fixed 
incomes;  all  of  this  certainly  would  make  a  poor  showing  for  free  trade. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


But  these  elements,  the  welfare  of  the  masses  and  good  of  the  largest 
number,  which  form  the  chief  concern  of  nations  practicing  protection,  are 
unworthy  of  the  notice  of  free  traders.  While  Mr.  Giffen,  the  chief 
statistician  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  as  a  prominent  representative  of 
the  free  trade  element,  is  busy  in  compiling  statistics  and  making  esti- 
mates on  foreign  investments  and  accumulations  of  the  upper  classes,  the 
interests  of  the  producers  are  not  inquired  into.  He  stated  before  the 
Royal  Commission  on  Industries,  "It  does  not  come  within  the  duties 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  take  note  or  draw  attention' to  the  fact  that  any 
particular  industry  in  this  country  is  coming  to  grief.'" 

With  an  increasing  .population,  those  engaged  in  productive  indus- 
tries, have  not  increased  in  the  same  proportion  as  those  occupied  in  dis- 
tributive employments.  The  sources  of  increased  employments  for  the 
English  masses,  have  been  in  the  extension  of  railways,  street  cars,  water- 
works, electric  light  plants,  and  other  non-producing  and  distributive 
occupations.  England  is  fast  changing  from  a  producing  countrj'  into  a 
depot  for  the  distribution  of  the  produce  of  other  countries.  In  an  article 
which  appeared  in  the  Fair  Trade  Journal,"  it  was  shown  that  in 
i8Si  one-third  fewer  persons  were  engaged  in  agriculture  than  in  1861. 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  number  was  reduced  still  lower,  as  was 
shown  by  the  census  of  1891.  The  article  referred  to  shows,  that  there 
were  employed  in  England  and  Wales,  the  following  persons  in  productive 
industries: 

1861  18S1. 

Persons  employed  in  manufacturing,  3,116,800         3,599,000. 

"     agriculture,  2,100,000         1,400,000. 

Total,  5,2i6,Soo         4,999,000. 

or  an  absolute  loss  in  this  time  of    217,800  producers  in  twenty  years. 
The  article  states. 

Our  corrected  figures  show  us  that  whereas  in  1861  productive  industries 
asborbed  26.84  percent  of  our  population  (a  better  record  than  even  that  of  the 
United  States)  in  1881,  only  19. 18  were  so  employed,  being  a  decline  of  7, 66  per  cent, 
or  to  put  it  in  the  clearest  possible  way,  only  5,000,000  of  our  population  are  now 
engaged  in  productive  industries,  instead  of  7,000,000  who  ought,  on  the  basis  of 
1861,  to  be  so  employed.  And  this,  whilst  the  number  employed  in  mere  distri- 
butive work,  which  on  the  basis  of  1S61  should  have  been  only  1,730,000,  has 
increased  to  the  number  of  2,363, 100. 

Sir  Edward  Sullivan  shows'  that  in  1880  the  number  of  income  tax 
payers  was  about  1,300,000,  which,  estimating  five  to  a  family,  would 
represent  a  population  of  6, 500,000  persons.  On  the  basis  of  a  population 
of  34,000,000  in  1881,  we  have  6,500,000  persons  in  the  tax-paying  class, 
and  27,500,000  others.  The  free  trade  statisticians  through  the  Board 
of  Trade  returns  and  other  sources  have  much  to  say  of  the  6,500,000, 

'  Final  Report,  p.  22.        =  Vol.  III.,  p.  643.         ^  prosperity  of  Arithmetic,  Chap.  II. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


including  the  merchants,  bankers,  capitalists,  land-owners,  traders, 
brokers,  ship-owners,  financiers,  etc.,  while  the  welfare  and  interest  of  the 
29,500,000  are  scarcely  regarded  as  worthy  of  notice  in  framing  an  eco- 
nomic policy  for  a  great  nation.  Of  this  vast  body  called  "the  masses," 
Sullivan  points  out  that  there  are  7,000,000  paupers  and  14,000,000 
who  subsist  on  earnings  of  less  than  $2.52  per  week.  In  the  great  free 
trade  program  the  welfare  of  nearly  30,000,000  of  people  is  of  less  impor- 
tance than  the  few  into  whose  hands  the  wealth  of  the  nation  has  become 
centred.  From  an  ecdnomic  point  of  view  the  free  trade  economist  regards 
a  vast  surplus  of  labor  as  a  national  advantage,  since  by  an  abundance  of 
laborers  who  overstock  the  market,  wages  are  kept  down  to  a  point  where 
hands  can  be  purchased  so  cheaply  that  foreign  competition  can  be  resisted. 
When  the  policy  of  protection  was  introduced  under  the  leadership 
of  L,ord  Bacon,  the  country  was  filled  with  tramps,  beggars,  and  a  degree 
of  destitution  prevailed  which  was  most  appalling.  The  immediate  causes 
contributing  to  this  condition  have  been  mentioned.  A  population  of 
unskilled,  ignorant  and  dependent  people,  was  transformed  under  the 
stimulating  influences  of  protection,  into  skilled  artisans,  industrious, 
enterprising  and  ambitious  citizens.  Flourishing  manufacturing  centres 
sprang  up  in  every  part  of  the  realm,  and  England  entered  upon  a  career  of 
industry,  thrift,  enterprise  and  grandeur  which  lifted  it  above  all  other 
nations.  From  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  the  close  of  the 
protectionist  period,  a  steady  and  gradual  increase  in  earnings  took  place. 
During  the  seventy-five  years  which  preceded  the  adoption  of  free  trade 
the  wages  of  laborers  increased  about  one  hundred  per  cent.  Although 
there  was  an  increase  in  wages  between  1846  and  1876  in  certain 
occupations  and  trades,  it  was  not  so  great  as  has  been  claimed  by 
free  trade  writers.  During  the  period  last  named,  labor  unions  took 
advantage  of  the  monopoly  which  the  English  manufacturers  held  in  for- 
eign markets,  alid  in  some  in.stances  forced  from  their  emploj'ers  a 
higher  wage  rate  than  otherwise  would  have  existed.  But  since  1876, 
since  the  excessive  importations  into  England  of  competing  commodities 
have  occurred,  since  the  rivalry  of  the  Germans  and  other  Continental 
nations  in  neutral  markets  has  become  so  sharp,  neither  labor  organiza- 
tions nor  any  other  power  has  been  sufficient  to  prevent  a  decrease  in 
wages  to  meet  the  new  conditions.  The  universality  in  the  u.se  of 
machinery  and  all  new  appliances  and  labor-saving  devices,  the  vast  accumu- 
lation of  capital  and  its  concentration  in  manufacturing,  have  placed  all 
great  commercial  nations  upon  an  equality  in  everything  excepting  labor 
cost.  Superior  skill,  artistic  taste  or  technical  learning,  can  no  longer 
be  po-ssessed  by  one  country  alone.  The  educational  facilities  have 
become  so  universal,  the  means  of  communication  so  effective,  that  any 
new  device  or  idea  soon  becomes  the  property  of  the  whole  world  and  is 
practiced  by  all. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  experience  of  the  English  people  since  1870  has  demonstrated 
that  if  England  stays  in  the  race  under  free  trade  as  a  competing  manu- 
facturing nation,  the  wage  scale  of  her  artisans  must  ultimately  be  reduced 
to  the  lowest  wage  scale  paid  in  any  competing  country.  If  the  United 
States  ever  controls  foreign  trade  as  against  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Continental  nations  in  manufactures,  it  must  be  by  the  sacrifice  of  the 
present  wage  rate  of  its  laborers.  The  industrial  warfare  which  has  raged 
between  England  and  Continental  countries  for  the  last  twenty-fiive  years, 
has  fully  demonstrated  the  truth  of  this  assertion.  The  effect  of  Conti- 
nental competition  in  neutral  markets  and  in  England,  upon  wages  since 
1876,  furnishes  one  of  the  most  important  economic  facts  to  be  found  in 
the  commercial  hi.story  of  the  world.  The  statements  of  economic  writers 
of  the  free  trade  school,  with  reference  to  wages  in  England,  and  the 
effect  of  such  competition  upon  them,  have  at  last  been  subjected  to 
investigation  which,  while  it  does  not  furnish  accurate  and  trustworthy 
facts  on  the  question  as  to  whether  wages  in  England  have  increased 
or  declined  since  the  adoption  of  free  trade,  exposes  the  absurdity 
of  many  of  the  free  trade  arguments.  It  may  be  safel}^  asserted  that 
the  effect  of  free  competition  has  been,  in  many  instances,  to  force  a  reduc- 
tion in  wages,  in  other  in.stances  to  arrest  advance,  while  it  has  largely 
increased  the  body  of  unemployed  and  reduced  to  partial  employment  many 
who  under  protection  would  have  been  working  at  full  time.  The  writer 
has  derived  his  information  upon  the  subject  principally  from  three  sources. 

1.  The  Royal  Commission  on  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industries 
of  1885-86,  appointed  by  parliament  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the 
decline  of  trade,  from  which  the  evidence  heretofore  quoted  was  taken. 

2.  From  the  proceedings  of  the  Industrial  Remuneration  Conference, 
held  in  January,  1885. 

3.  From  the  reports  and  proceedings  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
L,abor,  which  conducted  its  investigations  from  1891  to  1894. 

The  Royal  Commission  of  1885-86,  submitted  a  list  ofque.stions  to  the 
Chambers  of  Commerce,  Business  Men's  Associations  and  Labor  Organiza- 
tions, asking  for  replies  showing  the  wage  rate  which  had  prevailed  in 
England  during  twenty  years,  from  1864  to  1884,  together  with  any 
changes  which  had  taken  place  during  that  time.  While  it  appeared 
from  the  an.swers  received  that  in  some  instances  there  had  been  a  slight 
advance  in  wages  since  1876,  and  that  in  other  instances  no  reductions 
had  been  made;  still  in  the  majority  of  cases  it  was  shown  that  wages 
reached  their  highest  point  in  1876,  having  experienced  something  of  an 
advance  from  1864  to  that  time.  But  from  1876  to  1884,  reductions  had 
taken  place  which  lowered  the  wage  rate  to  the  level  of  1864,  and  in  many 
instances  below  the  rate  paid  at  that  time. 

The  writer  has  compiled  from  the  proceedings  of  the  commission 
answers  which  were  returned  in  a  great  variety  of  industries,  representing 


BETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


killed  artisans,  from  which  the  reader  can  ascertain  the  rate  of  wages 
paid  and  the  reductions  which  took  place  during  the  twenty  years  men- 
ioned.  This  undoubtedly  furnishes  the  most  reliable  and  authentic  state- 
ment upon  the  question  to  be  found  anywhere.  Among  the  questions 
submitted  were  the  following: 

14.  "Q.  In  your  trade  has  there  been  any  change  in  the  rate  of  wages 
during  the  past  twenty  years  in  your  district?"  The  first  ten  years  of 
the  period  investigated,  was  one  of  general  prosperity,  but  during  the  last 
ten  j'ears,  beginning  with  1874,  occurred  that  excessive  Continental  com- 
petition which  has  been  so  injurious  to  English  labor  and  capital,  exposed 
as  they  were  under  free  trade,  to  foreign  competition  at  home. 

A  number  of  the  answers  received  were  as  follows:' 

Dunkinfield— The  Amalgamated  Society  of  Engineers,  Machinists, 
Smiths  and  Pattern-makers.  "Slight  advance  since  1864.  Much  more 
than  compensated  by  the  far  larger  work  done  in  a  given  time." 

Dundee— Engineering  and  machine  making.  "Paid  by  week. 
Skilled  labor  255.,  unskilled  15.?.  The  changes  are  for  time  work:  Per 
week,  1865,  22s.;   1872,  245.;    1880,  26.?.;   1883,  29^.;   1885,  25-v." 

Glasgow— Engine  making  and  machine  making  trade,  comprising 
smiths,  fitters,  turners,  pattern-makers,  millwrights,  planers,  borers, 
slotters,  mechanical  draftsmen,  brass  finishers,  and  coppersmiths;  also 
joiners  employed  in  the  construction  of  cotton,  silk,  flax,  woolen  or  other 
machinery  and    shipsmiths. 

The  present  rate  of  wages  for  skilled  workmen  in  the  engineering  trade  here  will 
scarceh'  average  more  than  2bs.  per  week  of  fifty-four  hours,  if  so  much.  The  price 
of  piece-work  here  has  for  twenty  years  steadily  receded,  sometimes  quicker,  some- 
times slower,  but  still  always  declining;  still  as  the  price  goes  down  men  scheme  and 
try  to  make  up  for  each  reduction,  until  for  locomotive  work  it  is  practically  task 
work.     Time  wages  are  nearly  down  to  the  level  of  1S64,  perhaps  5  per  cent  above. 

Engineers,  machinists,  millwrights,  .smiths  and  pattern-makers  (St. 
Rollox  Division).  "For  piece-work  a  general  fall  of  50  to  75  per  cent. 
Time  work  wages  in  busy  times,  like  1872-73,  have  risen  about  15  per 
cent,  and  in  dull  times  again  reduced  to  about  the  .same  rate  as  twenty 
years  ago." 

Liverpool— Engineering.  "Paid  by  the  hour.  Declined  to  state  the 
rate  of  wages.  During  the  last  twenty  years  we  had  an  advance  of  7>4 
per  cent,  and  the  same  amount  of  reduction  at  present,  working  at  the 
reduced  rate." 

Monifieth— Amalgamated  Society  of  Engineers,  Machinists,  etc. 
' '  We  are  paid  here  by  the  week.  At  rates  varying  from  1 5.V.  for  unskilled 
to  25.^.  for  skilled  labor.  From  24.^.  in  1865,  to  2-]s.  in  1876,  falling  from 
that  time  until  1878  to  256-;  again  rising  to  28-^.  in  1883;  then  falling  again 
to  255.  in  1885." 

>  Second  Report,  Royal  Commission  ou  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industry,  .\ppendix  D,  Part  II. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


Preston — Iron  working,  including  fitters,  turners,  engineers,  pattern- 
makers and  smiths.  "Almost  wholly  by  time.  Average  rate  about  28.^. 
per  week.     Practically  no  change  since  1864." 

Preston — Second  Branch.  "Prominent  symptoms  of  the  depression 
are  the  large  quantities  of  people  out  of  work  and  no  possibility  of  getting 
work.  Wages  average  about  28.f.  per  week.  Very  little  change  in  wages 
since  1864." 

Shipley — The  engineering  and  machine  making  trade,  in  connection 
with  woolen  and  worsted  manufacture. 

The  existing  depression  is  due  to  the  closing  of  the  most  important  of  the  foreign 
markets  by  hostile  tariffs,  and  a  reduction  of  the  purchasing  power  of  our  own  coun- 
trymen. The  general  average  of  wages  is  about  285.  6d.  for  society  men;  non-society 
men  about  24s.  Wages  are  about  the  same  as  they  were  twenty  years  ago.  They 
would  average  2S.  or  3.1.  higher  from  about  1869  to  1873,  but  they  have  since  gone 
down  to  their  old  level. 

Sunderland — Marine  engine  building,  and  all  engineering  work  apper- 
taining to  shipping.  "Wages  have  been  in  1864  about  275.  per  week. 
They  increased  to  345.  in  1874,  and  since  then  up  to  the  present  they 
have  fluctuated  between  31.9.  and  2js.  per  week." 

Plumstead — Steam  engines  and  tools,  for  the  manufacture  of  steam 
engines,  likewise  all  classes  of  machiner>'.  "We  are  paid  8d.  an  hour, 
and  .some  are  on  piece  work.  Wages  are  about  the  same  this  last  thirty 
>  cars. 

Ayr — Boiler-making  and  Iron  Ship  Builders'  Society,  and  bridge  and 
lank  makers.  "Average  time  pay  is  6d.  per  hour.  In  1882  and  1883 
we  attained  our  highest  rate  of  wages,  but  at  present  our  rate  of  wages  is 
even  lower  than  at  any  time  previous,  both  on  time  and  piece-work." 

Liverpool — Boiler-making  and  iron  ship  building.  "Skilled  work- 
men from  28s.  to  345.  per  week.  Unskilled  workmen  205.  to  24.?.  per 
week.     Piece  work  about  15  per  cent  less  than  1864." 

Stockton-on-Tees — Boiler-making,  iron  ship  building  and  bridge  roof 
and  gas  holder  building.  "Ship  builder's  wages  are  10  per  cent  less  now 
than  at  any  time  we  know. ' ' 

Waterford — Boiler-making  and  iron  ship  building.  "Wages  by 
week  275. ,  15.?.,  12^.;   ID  per  cent  reduction." 

Birkenhead — Iron  moulding.  "Paid  by  the  week  at  34'.?.  per  week 
of  fifty-four  hours.     Wages  are  the  same  now  as  twenty  years  ago. ' ' 

Huddersfield — Iron  moulding.  "Wages  from  ^d.  to  -jd.  per  hour 
according  to  skill.     No  change  in  rate  of  wages  for  twenty  years." 

Swansea — Iron  founding.  "In  1865  the  wages  in  the  town  averaged 
/,i  IS.;  now  ^i  los.  ;  but  at  present  in  the  country  places  it  is  quite 
different.     Some  men  are  working  for  as  little  as  i7.«.  6d.  per  week." 

Halifax — Coachmakers.  "Wages  are  no  more  now  than  they  were 
twenty  years  ago." 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

Leeds — Coachmakers'  Societ}-.     "Wages  have  decreased." 

Oldham — Engineering  and  mechanical  blacksmith.  "Skilled  labor 
average  wages  per  da}',  sj'.  ^d.  Unskilled,  35'.  ^d.  No  change  whatever 
on  time  work." 

Walsall — Chain,  Cartgearand  Case  Framemakers'  Association.  "As 
far  as  we  can  calculate  the  average  payment  for  a  %veek's  work  done 
would  be  about  \S,s.,  but  from  1870  to  1S75  that  wage  would  be  245.  for 
the  same  work  done. ' ' 

Callington — Operative  Stone  Masons'  Friendly  Societj'.  "Work  by 
the  piece.     For  piece-work  30  per  cent  lower. ' ' 

Dalton-in-Furness — Friendlj'  Society  of  Operative  Stone  Masons. 
"The  wages  per  hour  are  6y2  to  ^yid.  For  piece-work  the  rate  has  been 
reduced  one-half  exactly.  For  day  or  hour  work  the  rate  is  very  near  what 
it  was  twenty  years  ago.  There  have  been  fluctuations,  sometimes 
higher,  sometimes  lower,  but  the  last  few  years  never  lower  than  thej' 
are  at  present. ' ' 

Buxton — Carpenters  and  joiners.  "Wages  yj^d.,  jd.,  6}id.  For 
time  work  in  1875,  the  wages  were  33.?.'per  week  for  forty-nine  and  one- 
half  hours.  In  1877,  were  dropped  to  the  present  price,  30.J.  per  week, 
forty-nine  and  one-half  hours." 

London — The  United  Cocoanut  Fibre  Mat  and  Matting  Weavers' 
Society.  "  Work  by  piece.  There  has  been  a  reduction  of  30  per 
cent. 

Ashton-under-Lyrae — Power  Loom  Weavers'  Association.  Cotton 
manufactures.  "All  piece-work.  In  this  district  there  has  been  a  gen- 
eral reduction  of  15  per  cent  in  the  price  paid  for  weaving,  in  some  cases 
as  much  as  33  per  cent. ' ' 

Todmorden — Power  loom,  cotton  weaving.  "Work  by  the  piece  at 
about  an  average  of  15  to  20  per  cent  below  the  wages  paid  for  weaving 
for  twenty  years  preceding  1878. 

Blackburn — Power  loom  overlookers  in  cotton  mills.  "We  have 
suffered  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent." 

Congleton — Ribbon  trimming  and  band  weaving.  Ribbon  Weavers' 
Friendly  Society.  "The  rate  of  i860,  except  for  three  years,  1870-73, 
never  reached.     Any  price  offered  has  been  accepted  lately." 

Shaw — ^Cotton  industry.  Card  and  Blowing-room  Association. 
"The  male  portion  are  all  paid  by  the  week,  but  there  are  so  many  prices 
paid  that  I  cannot  particularize  them  for  you,  only  on  the  following 
scale:  some  at  26s.  per  week;  some,  235.  per  week;  some,  2i.t.  id.; 
some,  205.,  and  some  at  18.?.  There  have  been  three  reductions  in  our 
trade  during  the  last  twenty  years,  at  5  per  cent  on  every  occasion. 

Mossley — Cotton  trade.  Strippers  and  grinders.  Male  and  female. 
Card  and  Blowing-room  Operatives'  As.sociation.  "Wages  per  week  18^. 
Reduction  1 5  per  cent. ' ' 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


Leicestershire — Sock  and  Top  Society.  Children's  socks.  About  iioo 
skilled  workmen  eniplo)-ed.  Female  adults  about  one  hundred.  Between 
thirteen  and  eighteen  years,  300  female  workers.  About  seven  hundred 
men  wholly  out  of  employment  and  the  remainder  partly.  Female 
workers  in  the  same  proportion. 

From  1865  to  1875  we  obtained  three  advances  in  our  wages,  of  an  average  of  11 
per  cent  each  time,  besides  abolishing  a  system  of  frame  rents,  which  was  a  gain  to  the 
workmen  of  about  4s.  per  week.  Since  1875  we  have  had  two  reductions  in  wages  of 
an  average  of  10  per  cent  each.  I  should  say  the  increase  left  us  for  piece-work  is 
about  ds.  per  week,  to  a  quick  hand  In  the  old  time  our  wag^  were  wretchedly  low, 
and  with  all  our  commercial  prosperity  of  the  last  twenty-five  years,  we  could  now 
only  barely  live  if  we  had  plenty  of  work. 

Leicester — Elastic  Web  Weavers'  Association.  "The  rate  of  wages 
is  quite  50  per  cent  lower  in  piece-work;  time  work  being  only  recently 
introduced,  has  not  changed  materially. 

Aberdare — The  Amalgamated  Society  of  Boot  and  Shoemakers. 
"The  wages  by  the  week  are  from  15.V.  to  z^s.,  and  a  lot  of  boys  and  girls 
employed  at  from  75. to  los.  We  had  only  one  change  of  wages  and  that 
was  in  1872.  We  had  a  rise  of  15  per  cent,  but  since  it  has  been  taken 
back  and  more  with  it  with  most  of  them.  We  are  only  three  that  claim 
the  wages  of  1872  at  the  present  time." 

London — United  Society  of  Journeymen  Curriers.  "Wages  in  piece- 
work and  hour  work  from  6d.  to  -jd.  an  hour.  Not  much  change  in  twenty 
years.     In  some  cases  men  are  working  for  less  than  ever." 

Preston — Letter-press  printing.  '  'Jobbing  houses  pay  305.  per  week. 
Newspapers  are  all  piece-work.  Piece-work  on  newspapers  same  now  as 
twenty  years  ago. ' ' 

Scarsborough — Letter-press  printing.  "By  the  week  wages  205. 
and  285.     Wages  have  increased  from  24.?.  to  a  minimum  of  285.  per  week. ' ' 

Sunderland — Sunderland  Branch  of  Typographical  Association 
Letter-press  Printers.  ' '  Wages  by  the  week  26.?.  The  change  in  wages 
of  the  printing  profession  during  the  last  twenty  years  is  scarcely  worth 
mentioning;    is.  a  week  advance." 

Typton — West  Bromwich,  Oldbury,  Typton,  Cosley,  Amalgamated 
Association  of  Miners.  "Men  employed  in  and  about  coal  and  iron  stone 
mines.  During  the  last  twenty  years  the  wages  have  varied  at  different 
periods,  namely,  from  4.?.  6d.  per  day,  to  ^s.  per  day,  and  to  y.  8d.  and 
3^.  4d.  per  day." 

London— Dressmakers,  Milliners  and  Mantle  Makers'  Society. 
"Wages  have  risen  from  6s.  to  185.  per  week.  Wages  paid  twenty  years 
ago  were  from  6s.  to  1 25.  per  week.  At  the  present  time  some  employers 
are  offering  less  wages  to  those  who  will  accept  them." 

Dublin— Flint  Glassmakers'  Society  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 
"The  few  men  employed   in  Dublin  at  the  flint  glass  trade  at  the  present 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


time  are  in  a  starving  state,  their  weekly  pay  being  but  135.  per  week, 
with  four  and  five  children  to  keep,  and  pay  3^.  a  week  for  one  room." 

"By  the  piece,  the  workmen  receive  less  than  they  did  six  years 
ago  for  the  same  time.  The  rate  of  wages  has  gone  down  very  much 
within  the  last  twenty  years;  men  could  earn  £2,  they  are  now  getting 
1 5,> .  per  week. ' ' 

Sunderland— Window  Glass  Workers'  Assembly  No.  3504. 

All  those  engaged  in  the  manufactureof  glass,  viz. ,  blowers,  gatherers  and  flatteners 
are  paid  by  the  piece.  Warehousemen  are  paid  20s.  to  265.  per  week.  Have  had 
from  30  to  40  per  cent  reduction.  The  most  prominent  symptoms  are  the  English 
markets  overstocked  with  foreign  manufactured  glass  which  is  sold  at  a  very  low 
price,  consequently  the  English  consumer  buys  the  cheapest  article  in  the  market  at 
the  lowest  price,  hence  the  depression  in  the  English  window  glass  trade. 

Edinburgh — Trades'  Council,  representing  twenty-five  trade  societies. 
"The  average  wage  for  skillful  male  labor  for  the  whole  year  is  22.?.  per 
week.  In  many  trades  there  has  been  an  apparent  increase  of  wages, 
but  the  real  wages  are  lower  now  than  for  many  years. 

Leicester — Cabinet-makers  and  wood  carvers. 

The  work  here  is  paid  for  by  the  hour,  by  piece,  and  by  lump.  The  general  rate 
is  "jd.  per  hour,  but  there  are  more  receiving  less  than  that. 

(a)  Owing  to  a  larger  introduction  of  machinery  I  don't  think  the  piece-work  is 
any  better  paid  for,  if  so  well  as  it  was,  because  at  every  fresh  innovation  or  improve- 
ment to  lessen  labor  a  corresponding  amount  is  deducted  from  the  price  paid  for  the 
article. 

(b)  For  time  work  there  is  a  considerable  advance  in  the  lasl  twenty  years,  for 
whereas  men  used  to  receive  about  24s.  to  28.S.  per  week  of  about  fifty -eight  hours,  they 
now  get  at  least  32.?.  or  34.S.  for  fifty -six  hours.  In  this  I  am  referring  to  the  better 
class  of  men,  for  there  are  plenty  working  at  from  £1  to  285.  per  week,  and  thankful 
to  get  even  that. 

Bath  and  Combe  Down— Alliance  Cabinet  Makers'  A.ssociation. 
Cabinet-makers,  carvers  and  turners. 

The  number  of  hours  worked  by  us  in  this  district  is  about  six  per  week  less 
than  twenty  years  ago;  it  was  about  sixty  per  week  then,  now  it  is  fifty-four  in 
some  shops,  in  others  fifty-six. 

As  a  rule  we  are  paid  by  the  piece.  In  some  instances  by  the  hour  and  also  by  the 
week.  The  present  rate  of  wages  varies  from  245.  to  30J.  per  week.  There  has  been 
very  little  change  in  the  rate  of  wages  for  time  work  during  the  last  twenty  years,  not 
more  than  2S.  per  week  has  it  increased  since  that^ime. 

(a)  With  regard  to  piece-work,  it  is  regulated  according  to  the  amount  of  work 
done  by  the  machines,  which  is  very  considerable.  In  some  instances  the  machine 
does  one-half  the  work.  The  total  production  per  week  is  above  the  average  of  the 
last  twenty  years. 

The  commission  also  called  upon  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  and 
Business  Men's  Associations  to  state  whether  the  wages  " for  skilled  labor 
and  unskilled  labor  is  al)ove  or  below  the  average  of  the  last  twenty 
years. ' ' 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  following  answers '  were  received  from  some  of  the  principal 
Chambers  of  Commerce  of  manufacturing  centres: 

Bately — "The  rate  of  wages  about  the  same." 

Belfast — "The  present  rate  of  wages  is  slightly  below  the  average  of 
the  last  twenty  years. ' ' 

Birmingham — "For  skilled  the  same,  but  unskilled  labor  is  below 
the  average  for  the  last  twenty  years. ' ' 

Bristall  (near  Leeds) — "Skilled  and  unskilled  labor  is  below  the 
average  for  the  last  twenty  years. ' ' 

Cleckheatou — "The  rate  of  wages  in  our  textile  factories  is  main- 
tained at  fair  average,  while  the  rate  in  the  industries  enumerated  in  No. 
6  ^machinery,  card  clothing,  leather,  coal  and  iron,  chemicals,  build- 
ing), is  under  the  average." 

Dudley — ' '  For  skilled  labor  the  average  is  somewhat  less. ' ' 

Dundee — "The  rate  of  wages  is  at  present  lower  than  it  has  been  for 
the  past  ten  or  twelve  years,  and  also  slighty  lower  than  the  average  of 
the  past  twenty  years.  This  is  general,  but  it  applies  both  to  the  skilled 
and  unskilled  labor. ' ' 

Huddersfield — "The  shorter  hours  for  labor  of  all  kinds  and,  owing 
to  more  efficient  machinery,  the  increased  quantity  and  quality  of  the 
work  turned  out  by  each  workman,  have  much  to  do  with  this  question." 
This  wool  manufacturing  centre  evades  the  question. 

Liverpool^Watchmaking.  "The  wages  have  been  pretty  well  wiped 
out,  because  the  great  bulk  of  the  operatives  have  been  wiped  out  of 
the  trade. " 

Luton — "Above  for  the  manufacture  of  straw  hats,  etc.;  below  for 
the  making  of  straw  plaits." 

Manchester — "The  rate  of  wages  should  be  taken  in  connection  with 
the  purchasing  power  of  the  wages.  Having  regard  to  this,  the  workman 
is  at  the  present  time  better  remunerated  than  ever  he  has  been  in  the 
past." 

North  Staffordshire — "Coal  and  iron  are  paying  a  lower  rate  of  wages 
now  than  they  have  averaged  for  the  past  twenty  3'ears. " 

Ossett — "Skilled  labor  is  at  a  lower  price  now  than  at  any  time  dur- 
ing the  last  twenty  years.  Unskilled  labor  is  plentiful  now,  and  consid- 
erably below  any  time  durin^the  last  twenty  years." 

Sunderland — "The  rate  of  wages  both  for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor 
is  above  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years,  except  in  the  glass  bottle 
trade,  in  which  the  wages  are  below  the  average." 

Coventry — "The  rate  of  wages  in  the  watch  trade,  as  applied  to 
skilled  labor,  is  something  below  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years. 
The  rate  of  wages  paid  in  the  ribbon  trade  is  much  below  the 
average. ' ' 

1  Royal  Commission,  First  Report,  Appendix  A. 


RETUJiN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

Newcastle. 
The  actual  present  rate  of  wages  for  skilled  labor  is  lower  than  it  was  four  or  five 
years  ago;  it  is  still,  however,  not  below  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years,  par- 
ticularly if  the  shorter  hours  worked  are  taken  into  account,  and  if  the  unprece- 
dented cheapness  of  all  the  necessaries  of  life  are  allowed  for,  the  remuneration  for 
the  quantity  of  labor  expended  by  skilled  operatives  is  now  above  the  average  of  the 
last  twenty  years. 

Tidmorden — Iron  moulders.  ' '  Iron  moulders  at  present  are  receiving 
345.  per  week  of  fifty-four  hours.  From  1875  to  1877  we  were  receiving  365. 
per  week.    In  1855  moulders  in  this  branch  were  receiving  34.^.  per  week. ' ' 

Warington — Iron  moulders.  "Wages  34.?.  per  week  of  fifty-four 
hours.  Twenty  years  ago  the  same  wages  as  now." 

Glasgow — Shipwrights.  "In  1865  time  work  ^i  i6s.  In  1885,  ^i 
10.?.  ^yid.,  being  305.  ^]4d-  at  present  for  fifty-four  hours  per  week,  the 
lowest  amount  for  the  last  fourteen  years,  and  55.  j^zd.  less  per  week 
than  we  received  twentj'  years  ago. ' ' 

Adrossam — As.sociated  Blacksmiths'  Society  "Wages  from  22s.  to 
2'js.  per  week;   15  per  cent  reduction  for  time  work." 

Renifrew — Associated  Blacksmiths'  Society.  "Piece-work  rate  has 
fallen  35  per  cent  in  the  last  twenty  j-ears.     Time  work  much  the  same. ' ' 

Carlisle — Coachmaking.  "Wages  per  week  2o.f.  to  30.?.  Reduction 
of  2s.  per  week." 

Dublin — Coachmaking.  "The  minimum  rate  of  wages  all  round  is 
about  20s.  6d.  per  week.  Piece  prices  are  very  much  reduced  and  time 
work  also." 

Dundee — Coach  building.  "All  paid  by  the  week.  Body-makers 
20s.  to  29^.  per  week.  Carriage  makers,  23.?.  to  2'js.  per  week.  Wheel 
makers,  20.?.  to  295.  per  week." 

"Coach  smiths,  24.?.  to  31.?.  per  week ;  vise-men  or  coach  fitters,  i-]s.\.o  2t,s. 
per  week;  trimmers,  20.S-.  to  29,?.  per  week;  painters,  20^-.  to  295.  perw^eek.  " 

lyondon — "Unskilled  labor  occupies  a  much  worse  position  worthy  of 
the  special  study  of  the  Royal  Commission.  The  influx  of  families  from 
agricultural  districts,  has  caused  the  supply  of  this  class  of  labor  to  exceed 
the  demand. ' ' 

Sheffield, 
It  is  very  difficult  to  e.stimate  the  rate  of  wages  for  skilled  and  unskilled 
labor  for  an  average  of  twenty  years,  especially  when  it  has,  as  is  tlie  case  under  con- 
sideration, covered  violent  fluctuations  in  trade  ;  but  in  the  opinion  of  this  Chamber, 
the  present  rate  of  wages  in  relation  to  the  services  rendered,  and  to  the  quality 
and  quantity  of  work  produced  is,  if  measured  by  money  payments,  very  nearly 
equal  to  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years. 

The  working  classes  do  not  suffer  so  much  from  a  reduction  in  the 
rate  of  wages  as  from  the  reduction  in  the  lumiber  of  hours  during  which 
they  can  be  employed,  although,  in  some  branches  of  the  trade,  the  rate 
of  wages  has,  no  doubt,  been  reduced.     "Short  work,"  however,  is  their 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


greatest  grievance,  and  this  is  of  course  brought  about  by  the  present 
state  of  depression. 

Tyne  Ports — "Seamen's  wages  are  below  the  average  of  the  last 
twenty  years. ' ' 

The  following  answers  were  received  from  the  principal  commercial 
associations  of  the  United  Kingdom:' 

Belfast — Linen  Merchants  Associations.  "Slightly  below  the  aver- 
age of  the  last  twenty  years,  which  include  some  inflated  years  immed- 
iateh'  succeeding  the  termination  of  the  American  war." 

North  of  England  Iron  Manufacturers'  Association— "Skilled  and 
unskilled  below  the  average." 

Leather  Trade  Association — "Skilled  labor  is  about  the  same  as  the 
average  twenty  years  since." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  reduction  in  wages  which  took 
place  between  1876  and  1885  was  not  caused  by  any  .sudden  depression  in 
trade,  of  short  duration,  but  that  it  came  about  gradually  through  a  period 
of  about  ten  years  following  the  Franco-Prussian  war,  and  was  accom- 
panied year  by  year  by  the  increase  of  the  imports  into  England  of  com- 
peting commodities,  together  with  the  increased  rivalry  and  competition 
in  neutral  markets.  The  English  manufacturers  were  compelled  to  reduce 
wages  not  only  to  hold  their  own  markets,  but  to  prevent  a  larger  portion 
of  their  home  trade  from  being  taken  from  them.  This  is  fully  estab- 
lished by  the  evidence  that  has  been  quoted  from  the  silk,  cotton,  woolen, 
iron,  lace  and  other  manufactures.  This  important  fact  that  the  Eng- 
lish people  have  been  compelled  to  reduce  wages  to  meet  Continental 
competition,  exposes  the  sophistry  of  those  arguments  of  the  free 
trade  writers  in  which  they  attempt  to  .show  that  high  wages  mean 
cheap  production.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  competition  to 
which  England  is  subjected  is  not  of  un.skilled  hand-workmen,  but  that 
to-day  nearly  200,000,000  people  in  Europe  are  struggling  for  commercial 
supremacy,  provided  with  all  modern  improvements  and  appliances.  The 
cost  of  raw  material  is  about  the  same  to  all  nations.  It  is  only  a  small 
item  when  compared  with  labor  cost. 

Another  item  which  should  be  taken  into  consideration,  in  estimat- 
ing the  effect  of  free  trade  on  the  laboring  masses,  is  the  ab.solute  loss  of 
employment  which  has  been  sustained. 

The  Minority  Report  of  the  Royal  Commi.ssion  on  Depression  of 
Trade  and  Industry'  stated : 

We  think  the  insufficiency  of  employment  is  the  most  serious  feature  of  the  exist- 
ing depression;  and  it  is  an  important,  indeed  an  anxious  question,  ivhether,  in  the 
face  of  the  ever-increasing  restrictions  placed  upon  our  industry  by  foreign  tariffs, 
and  the  ever-increasing  invasion  of  our  home  market  by  foreign  productions  admitted 
dutyfree,  we  shall  be  able  to  command  a  sufficiency  of  employment  for  our  rapidly 
growing  population. 

■Royal  Commissiou  on  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industry,  First  Report,  Appendix  B. 


EETURK  ro  FREE  TRADE. 


In  1882  Mr.  Robert  GifFen,  the  chief  statistician  of  the  free  trade  party 
and  the  head  of  the  statistical  department  of  the  government,  published  a  com- 
parison of  wages  between  1832  and  1882,  from  which  the  following  is  taken: 


OCCCPATIO.N. 


I  Wages 

Fifty  Years  Ago. 

.832. 


Carpenters, 
Bricklayers, 
Masons,  .    . 


Miners  (per  day), 


Mancliester, 
Glasgow,  . 
MancliesltT, 
Glasgow,  .  . 
Manchester, 
Glasgow,  .  . 
Staffordshire, 


5.  d. 

34  o 

26  o 
36  o 

27  o 
29  10 
23  S 

4  o 


A  considerable  advance  is  shown  by  the  above  estimate,  but  the 
reader  will  note,  however,  that  Mr.  GifFen  was  compelled  to  go  back  half 
a  century  in  order  to  find  a  basis  from  which  .such  results  could  be 
reached.  Even  though  the  rates  given  in  1832  are  conceded  to  be  accu- 
rate, they  become  of  less  importance,  because  free  trade  was  only  in  part 
adopted  in  1846,  and  not  until  about  i860  was  protection  withdrawn  from 
all  industries.  This  leaves  fourteen  years  of  protection  in  textile  and  metals, 
following  1832,  and  twenty-eight  years  of  protection  to  the  silk  and  many 
other  industries  embraced  within  the  period  covered.  It  has  been  proven 
by  very  tru.stworthy  authorities  that  the  figures  presented  by  Mr.  Giffen  for 
1832  are  too  low,  and  those  given  for  1882  are  in  many  in-stances  too  high. 

The  publication  of  Mr.  Giffen 's  tables  brought  out  investigations  and 
precipitated  a  sharp  controv.ersy  upon  the  question  as  to  whether  there 
had  been  an  advance  or  decline  in  wages  and  earnings.  This  question  was 
under  di.scussion  at  the  Industrial  Remuneration  Conference  in  1886,  when 
the  following  table  was  presented  by  Mr.  J.  G.  Hutchinson,  to  prove  the 
inaccuracy  of  Mr.  Giffen's  tables,  especially  for  1832: 


Cotton  spinners, Porter,  3S 

Cotton  weavers, [  Syinouds,     14 

Woolen  spinners, 

Woolen  weavers 

Woolen  dressers,      

Flaxmen,       

Flaxwomen,  

Coal  miners,  per  day, Symonds, 

Iron-founders, 

Machine  makers, 

Carpenters,  Greenwich 32     6 

Carpenters,  country,  average,  .    .  22     6 

Masons,  Greenwich, 3'     6 

Masons,  country,  average,   ...  24 

Bricklayers,  Greenwich,    ....  28 

Bricklayers, country,  average. 


Bevan,  19  o 
13  o 
20  10 
19  9 
13    o 


4     9 


39  S 
27  o 
39    8 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


In  discussing  this  question  before  the  Industrial  Remuneration  Con 
ference,  Mr.  Benjamin  Jones,  of  the  Co-operative  Wholesale Societj',  said: 

Mr.  Hey,  of  the  iron  founders,  had  been  at  the  trouble  of  taking  from  the  books 
of  that  association  the  average  wages  from  the  year  1855  to  the  present  time,  and  had 
entered  into  careful  details  as  to  deductions  made  for  holidays,  short  time,  sicknes! 
and  so  on.  After  these  deductions,  Mr.  Hey  had  ascertained  that  for  the  ten  years 
1S55-65,  the  net  wages  of  iron  founders  throughout  the  kingdom  were  £\  45.  dd.  per 
week;  for  the  ten  years,  1865-75,  £^  5-S-  ^rf.;  and  for  the  ten  years,  1875-85,  £1  s,s. 
5!id.     Where,  then,  was  the  increase  of  wages  which  Mr.  Giffen  had  estimated?  ' 

The  whole  question  is  reviewed  by  Mr.  Jones,  in  an  article  published 
in  the  Times  in  which  the  unfair  methods  resorted  to,  and  the  inaccuracies 
of  Mr.  Giffen  are  exposed,  as  follows: 

Since  Mr.  Giffen  read  his  paper  I  have  attempted,  so  far  as  my  limited  oppor 
tunities  would  permit,  to  ascertain  the  accuracy  of  his  comparative  statistics,  and  I  find 
they  are  the  reverse  of  satisfactorj'.  First,  in  the  "Miscellaneous  Statistics  of  the  United 
Kingdom, "  published  about  fifty  years  ago  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Potter,  there 
are  numerous  statements  of  the  rates  of  wages  current  at  that  time.  Mr.  Giffen  has 
only  culled  one  here  and  one  there,  and  apparently  those  only  which  told  the  most  in 
favor  of  his  conclusions.  Secondly,  the  figures  he  does  give,  both  for  the  past  and  the 
present,  are  in  some  cases  misleading,  and  are  not  to  be  depended  upon;  and  thirdly, 
he  has  entirely  overlooked  circumstances  adversely  affecting  the  working  classes  at 
the  present  time,  while,  apparently,  he  has  very  carefully  reckoned  up  everything 
that  would  put  a  rosy  color  upon  their  present  condition.  In  fact,  he  appears  to  have 
gone  on  the  principle  of  using  black  ink  for  the  past  and  red  ink  for  the  present. 
The  following  instances  may  be  given  of  his  inaccuracies:  He  says  the  wages  of  car- 
penters at  Manchester  fifty  j-ears  ago  were  24s.,  and  now  they  are  34J.,  the  increase  being 
42  per  cent.  The  early  wage  is  accurate;  but,  from  inquiries  made  for  me  at  Manches- 
ter, I  find  that  the  general  wage  now  paid  there  is  not  34J.  but  3IJ.  lod.,  which  reduces 
the  percentage  from  42  to  32,  or  a  reduction  of  nearly  one-fourth.  From  this  has  to  be 
deducted  the  adverse  circumstance  that,  while  in  the  former  period  carpenters  were  on 
weekly  wages,  at  the  latter  period  they  are  on  hourly  wages  and  are  stopped  off  their 
work  at  any  moment  by  changes  of  weather,  the  consequence  being  that  they  are 
compelled  to  lose  more  time  now  than  formerly,  which  prevents  them  earning  their 
full  nominal  wages.  Again,  take  bricklayers'  laborers  in  Manchester.  The  "Miscel- 
laneous Statistics"  show  that  in  1825  they  were  getting  j6s.  per  week.  Information 
supplied  to  me  from  Manchester  shows  that  they  now  get  21s.  yi.  per  week,  subject  to 
the  disadvantage  of  hourly  pay  as  against  weekly.  The  increase  here  is  5  s.  yi.  per 
week,  or  32  per  cent.  Mr.  Giffen  fixes  the  wages  of  these  men  at  12^.  per  week  fifty 
years  ago,  and  at  22i'.  now,  or  an  increase  of  83  per  cent.  In  Londonderry  the  wages 
of  laborers  in  1832  were  8.y.  per  week.  At  present  they  are  from  \2S.  to  \$s.  a  week, 
the  same  hours  being  worked  as  previously,  or  an  average  of  13.1.  dd.  This  gives  an 
increase  of  68  per  cent.  Mr.  Giffen  gives  the  figures  as  8.r.  and  i6i.,  or  100  per  cent 
increase.  He  also  gives  the  wages  of  London  dock  companies'  laborers  in  1S33  as 
15^.  per  week.  A  reference  to  the  "Miscellaneous  Statistics  "  shows  that  there  were 
three  rates,  viz.,  \^s.,  \bs.  6a'.,  and  \%s.\  but  Mr.  Giffen  ignores  the  two  higher  figures. 
A  final  instance  of  his  inaccuracy  is  to  be  found  in  his  comparison  of  seamen's  wages. 
According  to  the  "Miscellaneous  Statistics  of  the  United  Kingdom,"  the  wages  of 
seamen  in  sailing  ships  in  1833  were,  from  the  first  of  April  to  the  first  of  October,  £2 
\os.  per  month,  and  from  the  first  of  October  to  the  first  of  April,  £1  \os.  per  month, 
1  Report,  p.  67. 


HETUIiX  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Ill  average  of  £2>  P^''  month.  The  wages  of  able  seamen  in  sailing  ships  in 
;  varied  from  55.S.  lo  655.,  or  just  about  the  same  as  in  1833.  There  is  no  advance 
of  wages  here  shown,  and  there  are,  I  believe,  no  shorter  hours  worked  by  these  men; 
but  the  shipping  statistics  show  that  a  given  number  of  men  have  to  work  double  the 
tonnage  they  worked  thirty  years  ago.  The  way  Mr.  Giffen  treats  this  industry  is  to 
ignore  the  rate  of  wages  paid  Mty  years  ago;  to  ignore  the  double  work  performed  bj 
the  men  now  as  against  thirty  years  ago;  to  ignore  a  comparison  between  able  seamen 
in  sailing  ships  now  as  against  an  earlier  period;  and  to  satisfy  himself  by  comparing 
the  wages  of  seamen  in  sailing  ships  in  1850  with  the  wages  of  seamen  in  steamships 
onl)'  in  1S83.  The  result  is  that  he  brings  out  a  delusive  increase  in  wages  of  seamen 
of  25  to  70  per  cent,  when  in  fact  there  had  in  that  particular  class  been  none  at  all, 
although  double  tonnage  was  being  worked  by  every  man. 

Again  Mr.  Jones  write.s: 

Now  let  us  consider  the  rates  of  wages  fifty  years  ago  as  given  in  the  "  Miscella- 
neous Statistics  of  the  United  Kingdom,"  and  compare  them  with  those  obtaining  at 
the  present  time,  but  which  Mr.  Giffen  had  either  overlooked  or  ignored,  (i)  A  gen- 
tleman in  Londonderry  tells  me  that  coachmakers  there  get  on  an  average  235.  per 
week.  In  1832  the  Blue-book  shows  they  were  getting  20s.  This  is  an  increase  of 
15  per  cent  onlj-.  (2)  The  "Miscellaneous  Statistics"  show  power  loom  weavers  at 
Manchester  in  1832  getting  13.?.  to  165.  lod.,  or  an  average  of  14s.  iid.  per  week. 
Information  supplied  me  from  Manchester  shows  that  the  power  loom  weavers  now 
average  155.  dd.  per  week,  or  onlj-  a  trifle  over  the  pay  of  fifty  years  ago.  Card-room 
jobbers  in  1832  received  14.J.  6d.  to  17^.  per  week.  They  now  receive  15^.  to  i8i.,  or 
barely  5  per  cent  increase.  {3)  A  relative  over  seventy  years  of  age  tells  me  that 
throstle  spinners  got  gj.  per  week  over  fifty  years  ago  and  get  i\s.  per  week  now,  and 
cotton  mixers  got  18.?.  per  week  then  and  only  165.  per  week  now.  (4)  I  find  ina  book, 
"Arts  and  Artisans,"  publi-shed  in  1839  by  J.  C.  Symons,  an  Assistant  Commissioner 
on  the  Haudloom  Inquiry,  that  it  is  stated  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  W,  Dixon,  one  of 
the  largest  proprietors  of  collieries  in  Great  Britain,  that  the  average  earnings  of  col- 
liers at  the  Govaii  collieries  in  1S33  were  45.  per  day  often  hours,  with  house  and  coal 
free.  This,  too,  was  the  lowest  rate  that  prevailed  from  1824  to  1837,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  year  183 1,  when  the  rate  was  35.  iid.,  and  during  these  fourteen  years  the 
wages  ran  at  one  time  to  over  ss.  per  day.  A  gentleman  in  Glasgow  sends  me  word 
that  the  wages  of  colliers  at  the  present  time  average  3.!.  6ri.  per  day  of  ten  hours,  or 
15  per  cent  less  than  the  wages  of  fifty  years  ago.  (5)  Coming  to  London,  the  assis- 
tant secretary  to  the  Ironfouuders'  Association  tells  me  that  the  wages  in  their  trade  fifty 
years  ago  were  from  32^.  to  38J.  per  week,  or  an  average  of  35.5.  (6)  Now  their  aver- 
age wages  are  385.  per  week,  being  an  increase  of  about  8  per  cent.  The  London  com- 
positors received  wages  in  1833  on  the  basis  of  36.S.  per  week  for  bookwork.  In  1SS3 
the  same  rate  of  wages  prevailed.  (7)  In  connection,  too.  with  tlie  shorter  hours  of 
labor  worked  now  by  some  of  the  trades,  such  as  the  building  trades,  it  must  be  pointed 
out  that  while  fifty  years  ago  they  could  live  within  a  short  distance  of  their  work,  and 
so  lose  very  little  time  in  getting  to  it,  they  now  have  to  spend  fully  the  time  gained 
by  shorter  hours  of  labor  in  traveling  to  and  from  home  and  work.  Moreover,  they 
have  to  pay  railway  fares,  and  they  have  al.so  to  pay  increased  house  rents.' 

The  efforts  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Giffen  and  members  of  the  Cobden 
Club,  to  prove  that  the  wage-earners  of  the  United  Kingdom  were  receiv- 
ing higher  wages  nnder  free  trade  than  they  had  received  in  former  j-ears 
under  protection,  called  forth  an  article  from  the  vShcfflcld  Daily  Telegram 

1  Fair  Trade  Journal.  Vol    I  .  p.  i.~ 


FREE  TRADE  POLICr  A  FAILURE. 


on  Wednesday,  January  i8,  1885,  in  which  the  "labor  statistics"  for 
Slieffield,  published  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  were  analyzed,  and  the  inac- 
curacies of  free  trade  statisticians  exposed.  The  country  had  been  for  some 
time  deluged  with  articles  in  free  trade  newspapers,  designed  to  show  that 
an  appalling  state  of  affairs  existed  in  England  under  protection.  The 
Daily  Telegram  said: 

We  had  searched  and  searched  again  for  some  vestige  of  a  record  of  that  ghostly 
era,  but  we  had  searched  in  vain.  Solemnized  as  we  were  by  a  haunting  vision  of  a 
skeleton  generation  "  with  sallow  lantern-jaws,"  we  peered  into  the  dark  epoch — 181 1- 
1836 — when,  according  to  one  veracious  politician,  Sheffielders  nmst  have  worked  at 
their  benches  in  their  bones,  so  we  naturally  hailed  the  laborious  work  of  so  great  a 
statistician,  and  so  unimpeachable  a  Liberal  with  a  feeling  of  relief.  "  Here,"  said 
we,  "  here  between  these  two  blue  covers— here,  if  anywhere,  we  shall  come  upon 
those  appalling  twenty-five  years  when  the  people  had  no  bread,  and  were,  in 
consequence,  reduced  to  phantasms — mere  screeds  of  phosphorescent  vapor."  Cau- 
tiously and  with  such  a  hush  of  apprehension  as  Blue  Beard's  wife  felt,  we  have 
opened  the  supposed  skeleton  closet,  but  unlike  the  lady,  we  have  seen  no  skeletons. 
What  we  have  seen  is  this.  Our  working  cutlers  were  earning  from  "  15.?.  to  405. 
weekly;"  our  file  cutters,  "  iS.y.  to  255.;  "  our  file  grinders,  "355.  to  455.;"  our  saw 
handle  makers,  "305.  to  40s.  in  five  years  out  of  six,  and  305.  in  the  odd  year;"  our 
saw  makers,  "40^."  in  the  period  of  1810-26,  and  "305.  to  40s."  in  the  period  of 
1830-33;  our  steel  melters,  "£5  per  week"  in  1798,  in  1810,  1822,  1S26,  "^4  io.s." 
in  1829,  1830  and  1833;  our  grinders,  "£l"  per  week  in  1810,  "£5"  in  1822.  "£6" 
in  1826,  "£5  los."  in  1829,  "£5  "  in  1830,  and  "^5  "  in  1S33.  These  facts  are  printed 
in  official  type,  under  the  head  of  "Average  Weekly  Earnings  of  Workmen."  Here, 
reader,  behold  how  poverty  deepened  under  "  a  continual  bread  famine!  "  "If  you 
have  tears,  prepare  to  shed  them  now." 

Now  it  was  no  other  than  Mr.  Giffen  who  once  startled  us  by  saying  that  "fift\' 
years  ago  our  English  working  people  had  only  bacon,  and  very  little  of  that,  in  the 
shape  of  animal  food."  His  words  were  positive  and  uncompromising,  for  he  added, 
"They  got  no  other  meat. "  His  words  went  through  all  the  public  papers,  and  young 
free  traders  sighed  to  think  that  their  fathers  "got  no  other  meat"  than  now  and 
then  a  suippet  of  bacon.  That  was  sad;  so  sad  it  was  that  it  seemed  to  explain  why, 
in  four  consecutive  years  the  skies  wept  and  sorrowed  so  incontinenth- as  to  drown  the 
harvests.  But  it  occurred  to  us  that  we  must  have  been  living  in  some  other  planet 
"fifty  years  ago" — supposing  Mr.  Giffen  correct  in  his  statements.  He  spoke  in  the 
autumn  of  1883,  therefore  his  "got  no  other  meat"  referred  to  1833.  Now  in  that  year, 
1833,  "our  grinders  had  ^5  per  week,  our  steel  melters  £4,  our  saw  and  saw  handle 
makers  305.  to  40s.,"  and  although  no  figures  are  given  for  cutlers,  file  cutters  and 
file  grinders,  in  1833  we  find,  on  Mr.  Giffen's  own  .showing,  that  in  1832  they  were  in 
clover,  What  1833  was  like  hereabouts  is  plainly  set  forth  in  the  Sheffield  Annual 
Register— &  compilation  of  facts  issued  from  the  .same  office  as  the  ghastly  picture  of 
the  "continual  bread  famine,"  which  lasted  from  18 11  to  1836  inclusive: — "November  9, 
1833.  Hardware  Trade:  We  have  heard  with  much  pleasure  from  several  quarters 
that  the  trade  of  the  town  is  now  generally  brisk,  and  there  exists  an  unusual  degree 
of  satisfaction  both  among  the  masters  and  workmen."  There  is  much  more  to  the 
same  effect,  but  this  is  enough.  "An  unusual  degree  of  satisfaction  both  among  mas- 
ters and  workmen"  .shows  that  the  .spectral  starvelings  of  that  period  of  famine  could, 
like  Mark  Tapley,  be  "jolly"  under  all  circumstances.  Depression  in  trade,  and 
absolute  deprivation  of  meat,  had  no  power  to  depress  them.  Of  course  they  could 
have  had  "no  meat,"  for  Mr.  Giffen  has  said  so,  but  they  had  in  one  day  (November 


BET  CRN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


28)  "300  tons  of  cheese"  at  Sheffield  fair,  and  they  had,  some  of  them  30^. ,  some  35^., 
some  40^.,  some  80^.,  and  some  lOOS.  per  week,  and  upon  such  poor  pittances  as  those 
they  contrived  to  support  "the  famine"  with  Christian  fortitude  and  philosophic  resig- 
nation. The  Sheffielders  of  1833  bore  up  wonderfully  under  their  afflictions.  They 
were  not  an  exceedingly  great  multitude,  but  they  had — shadows  as  they  were— about 
^100,000  in  the  savings  bank;  for  in  those  doleful  days  even  the  ghosts  saved  money 
and  banked  it.  It  is  pleasant  to  know  these  things;  it  helps  one  to  breathe  more 
freely. ' 

Members  of  the  Cobden  Club  attempt  to  console  British  laborers  with 
the  free  trade  dogma,  stated  as  follows  by  Mr.  Giffen,  that  "what  con- 
cerns them  most  was  not  money  wages,  but  real  wages,  and  it  was  quite 
possible  that  with  money  wages  falling,  their  real  condition  might 
improve,  owing  to  the  increased  fall  in  the  price  of  the  principal  com- 
modities which  they  consume."  The  facts  revealed  by  the  evidence 
before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Trade  and  Industry,  show  that  in  many 
instances  money  wages  were  lessened  through  actual  reductions,  but  more 
universally  through  lack  of  employment.  The  dogmatic  free  trader  comes 
forward  with  his  fine-spim  theory  that  this  is  compensated  for  by  a  decline 
in  the  prices  of  consumable  commodities.  Under  this  contention  it 
is  asserted  that  on  the  whole  his  condition  is  improved  when  compared 
with  former  years.  This  was  one  of  the  questions  discussed  before  the 
Industrial  Remuneration  Conference.  Mr.  J.  B.  Hutchinson  read  a  paper 
before  the  conference  upon  this  question,  in  which  he  compared  the  pur- 
chasing power  of  a  week's  earnings  of  cotton  spinners  in  1804,  1814, 
1833,  and  1836,  and  of  1876.  Upon  the  earlier  period  he'cited  the  follow- 
ing table  from  Porter's  "Progress  of  the  Nation:" 


Work  Turned 
Off  by  One 

. 

Prices  from 
Greenwich  Hos- 
pital Records. 

Quantities  which 
a  Week's  Net 

Spinner 
per  Week. 

Wages  per  Week. 

n 

Harning^s^would 

o:s 

Lbs. 

Nos. 

Gross. 

Pieces. 

Net 

Flour 
per  Sack. 

Flesh 
per  lb. 

V^Su?^ 

Lbs.  of 
Flesh. 

..   d. 

■    :r.    d. 

d.      d. 

IS04 

12 

i8o 

60    0 

27    6 

32    6 

74 

83    0 

6  to  7 

62  K 

67    6 

31    0 

36    6 

74 

S3    0 

6  to  7 

124 

73 

'*,/ 

72    0 

^t 

74 

8 

175 

200 

90    0 

74 

70    6 

90 

■833 

22M 

180 

g^ 

21    0 

33    8 

6q 

6 

*7    , 

19 

200 

42    9 

69 

45    0 

267 

85    = 

The  sack  of  flour  is  takeU  at  280  lbs.  The  above  is  the  result  of  an 
average  of  several  men's  work  at  the  diflFerent  periods.  As  a  comparison 
with  the  above,  the  average  earnings  of  cotton  .spinners  at  Manchester  in 
1876,  from  Bevan's  Industrial  Classes  and  Industrial  Statistics,  was  given 
as  follows: 

1S85.    Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  III.,  p.  184 


FREE  TRADE  POLICV  A  FAILURE. 


Year. 

Wages. 

Flour  per  Sack, 

Flesh  per  Lb 

1876 

285.  Ad. 

43.?.  4a'. 

lod. 

Lbs.  of  Flour.    Lbs.  of  Flesh. 
182  34 


Mr.  Hutchinson  said: 


From  this  it  is  evident  that  not  only  were  a  spinner's  wages  in  1833  higher 
than  in  1876,  but  the  purchasing  power  of  his  earnings  was  considerably  in  his 
favor  also.  We  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  multiply  examples,  but  we  will  give 
below  some  additional  evidence  to  show  that  the  wages  given  for  1833  were  not  the 
highest  for  that  time.' 

It  appears  from  the  foregoing  that  during  the  period  of  protection 
from  1804  to  1833,  the  net  weekly  earnings  of  spinners  increased  from 
2,25.  bd.  to  425.  gd.,  while  the  purchasing  power  of  his  earnings  also 
increased.  While  in  1833  the  weekly  wage  would  purchase  from  210  to 
267  pounds  of  flour,  and  from  sixty-seven  to  eighty-five  pounds  of  meat, 
in  1876  it  had  been  reduced  to  285.  a  week,  and  would  purchase  only  182 
pounds  of  flour  and  thirty-four  pounds  of  meat.  It  should  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  rate  given  by  Bevau  in  1876  was  ascertained  before  the 
decline  in  wages  took  place  as  shown  by  the  evidence  before  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Trade  and  Industry. 

In  considering  the  purchasing  power  of  the  weekly  earnings  of  an 
English  artisan,  the  questimi  of  increased  rent  should  not  be  lost  sight 
of.  Mr.  Robert  Giffen,  in  attempting  to  show  the  condition  of  the  labor- 
ing classes  in  1884,  in  comparison  with  1832,  stated  that,  "House  rents 
may  be  considered  to  be  now,  one  and  a  half  times  more  than  they  were 
fifty  years  ago. 

Miss  Edith  Simcox,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Industrial  Remunera- 
tion Conference"  pointed  out  the  error  committed  by  Mr.  Giffen,  by 
citing  a  report  published  in  the  Journal  of  the  Statistical  Society  in  1840, 
giving  an  investigation  which  was  made  upon  personal  visits  to  5000 
working  class  dwellings  in  the  neighborhood  of  Westminster,  of  which 
the  average  rental  was  2s.  iid.,  and  that  a  similar  inquiry  was  made  by 
the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  in  1885,  of  763  tenements  in  the  same  locality, 
which  showed  an  average  rental  of  8s.  2d. ,  which  is  nearly  three  times 
the  rent  of  the  former  period,  instead  of  one  and  a  half  times,  as  stated 
by  Mr.  Giffen. 

While  it  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  some  improvement  has  been  made 
in  recent  years  in  the  dwellings  of  the  laboring  people,  yet  they  remain 
as  a  whole,  in  a  miserable  and  unwholesome  condition,  and  that  the 
wages  earned  are  insufficient  to  afford  better  accommodations  cannot  be 
denied.  If  the  wage-earners  of  the  United  Kingdom  could  afford  better 
houses,  it  would  induce  improvements  in  tenements,  but  so  long  as 
the  blighting  influence  of   free  trade   prevents   increased    earnings,  no 

1  Report  of  Industrial  Remuneration  Conference,  p.  50.         2  Report,  pp.  103  and  104, 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRA  DE. 


inducements  will   be  oiTered  to  property  owners  to  furnish  better  tene- 
ments and  dwellings. 

The  question  of  prices  and  cheap  clothing  was  touched  upon  by  Mr. 
Burns,  by  whom  the  real  truth  of  the  cheap  clothing  argument  so  often 
advanced  by  free  traders  was  very  clearly  set  forth  as  follows : 

With  regard  to  the  purchasing  power  of  motiey,  meat  was  at  least  50  per  cent 
dearer  than  it  was  twenty-five  years  ago.  It  was,  however,  true  that  boots  were 
cheaper  !  It  used  to  be  said,  "  There  is  nothing  like  leather ;  "  but  the  shoemaker  of 
the  present  day  appeared  to  have  reversed  that  saying  by  substituting  another,  "There 
is  nothing  like  brown  paper  ;  "  and  he  gave  them  plenty  of  it.  What  was  said  of  boots 
applied  to  clothing,  such  as  moleskins  and  corduroys,  which,  although  decreased  25 
per  cent  in  price,  had  diminished  125  per  cent  in  quality.  In  fact,  the  clothes  sold  to 
the  working  classes  at  the  shoddy  shops  were  similar  to  the  goods  supplied  to  the 
natives  on  the  banks  of  the  Niger  and  the  Congo,  where  he  had  been.  He  remem- 
bered seeing  a  native  on  the  banks  of  the  Niger  washing  some  of  his  clothes.  They 
had  recently  been  brought  from  England,  and  bj-  the  time  he  had  rinsed  the  water, 
blue  and  size  out  of  them,  there  was  very  little  left  for  him  to  wear.  ' 

The  alleged  advantage  which  the  Briti.sh  artisan  has  over  the  Amer- 
ican in  the  way  of  cheap  clothing,  has  found  a  place  in  the  free  trade 
literature  of  recent  campaigns  in  the  United  States.  The  free  trade  agi- 
tator has  attempted  to  make  it  appear  that  although  English  laborers 
receive  lower  wages,  they  wear  all  wool  and  very  durable  clothing,  pur- 
chased at  a  comparatively  small  price. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  increase  in  rents,  the  advance  in  cer- 
tain necessaries,  making  all  allowances  for  a  decline  in  prices  of  other 
commodities,  the  low  wages  and  lack  of  employment  leave  the  skilled 
artisan  of  the  country  in  a  most  miserable  condition  with  the  chances  in 
favor  of  his  dying  in  an  almshouse.  While  there  has  been  an  advance 
of  50  per  cent  in  rent,  the  price  of  butcher's  meat  and  eggs,  has  risen 
from  ID  to  40  per  cent  since  1840.  Bread,  butter  and  vegetables  remain 
about  the  same,  and  the  price  of  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  soap,  syrups,  mar- 
malades and  clothing  has  declined.  His  wages  have  either  stood  still  or 
declined,  when  measured  by  the  week;  but  when  measured  by  actual 
earnings  they  have  declined  through  a  lack  of  employment.  A  careful 
examination  of  the  literature  and  discussions  bearing  upon  this  phase 
of  economic  conditions  ought  to  satisfy  any  candid  reader  that  the  mass 
of  British  laborers  are  in  a  more  deplorable  condition  and  confronted 
with  a  more  serious  problem  as  to  their  future  welfare  than  at  an>-  time 
in  recent  years. 

It  is  a  most  brazen  piece  of  deception  to  contend  that  tlirongh  the 
reduced  price  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  British  artisans  and  laborers 
are  nearly  or  quite  as  well  off  as  those  of  the  United  States.  The  mere 
reduction  in  the  cost  of  a  few  necessaries  of  life,  only  in  part  compensates 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


for  the  man}-  other  elements  which  drag  them  down  and  bind  them  to  a 
hopeless  and  increasing  condition  of  industrial  servitude. 

A  decline  in  prices  may  benefit  the  laborers  of  a  nation,  if  it  is  not 
brought  about  at  the  expense  of  their  own  incomes.  But  when  the 
sacrifice  in  earnings  is  proportion atety  greater,  and  outweighs  such 
advantages,  on  the  whole,  he  suffers  a  loss.  Under  protection  in  the 
United  States  the  wage-earners  have  enjoyed  a  gradual  advance  in  money 
wages  since  1859,  and  an  increase  in  real  wages  by  its  greater  purchasing 
power,  through  a  decline  in  prices,  besides  a  constantly  increasing  field  of 
employment  through  the  expansion  of  industries.  This  is  one  of  the 
greatest  triumphs  of  the  system  of  protection.  In  England  free  trade  has 
brought  a  degree  of  reduced  wages  and  lack  of  employment,  which  more 
than  overbalances  the  enlarged  purchasing  power  of  money.  This  is  the 
fixed  and  permanent  condition  of  those  who  are  able  to  get  work,  while 
there  is  an  ever  increasing  body  of  laborers  unable  to  find  employment, 
subsisting  on  private  and  public  charities,  with  all  hope  gone  of  ever  see- 
ing better  days  under  free  trade. 

We  are  fortunately  able  to  give  recent  official  expressions  upon  this 
question.  A  Labor  Commission  was  appointed  by  parliament  in  1891, 
which  during  the  following  three  years  investigated  numerous  questions 
affecting  the  laborers  of  the  country.  The  investigation  of  strikes,  lock- 
outs, relations  of  employers  and  employed,  labor  legislation,  and  many 
other  phases  of  the  question  was  quite  thorough,  both  as  to  England  and 
foreign  countries.  Upon  the  question  of  the  present  wage  rate  the  reports 
of  the  investigation  are  quite  complete  as  to  all  general  trades.  They 
also  contain  a  very  full  statement  of  the  wages  of  women  in  nearly  all 
industries.  The  report  does  not  disclose  as  thorough  an  investigation 
into  the  wages  of  those  engaged  in  the  textile  indu.stries,  hardware,  cut- 
lery, and  various  competing  industries  aiTecte'd  by  the  system  of  free 
imports.  Yet,  .sufficient  is  given  to  show  a  lower  wage  rate  in  all  employ- 
ments than  has  been  reported  by  United  States  Consuls  and  private 
individuals  who  had  made  statements  upon  the  question  with  the  excep- 
tion, of  course,  of  those  manufacturers  who  have  removed  their  plants 
to  the  United  States  and  furnished  either  to  Congressional  investigating 
committees  or  to  the  press  statements  of  wages  which  were  paid  by  them 
in  both  countries.  The  reader  will  find  a  statement  of  the  wages  paid  in 
the  various  trades  as  reported  by  this  Commission,  in  the  table  of  com- 
parative wages. 

While  a  few  instances  of  advance  in  wages  within  the  past  few 
years  are  mentioned  as  having  taken  place  in  certain  localities  and  trades, 
yet  it  does  not  appear  by  the  final  report  which  contains  a  summary  of 
the  investigation  of  wages  that  any  .specific  inquiry  was  made  upon  the 
question  of  advance  or  decline  in  wages,  neither  was  a  special  investiga- 
tion made  into  a  comparison  of  the  present  wage  rate  with  that  of  former 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


times.  In  this  respect  the  investigation  differed  from  the  one  held  in 
1SS5,  which  specifically  inquired  into  the  changes  which  had  taken  place 
during  a  period  of  twenty  years,  from  1864  to  1SS4. 

It  appeared  from  the  report  that  about  the  3'ear  1891,  there  took 
place  advances  in  the  wages  of  carpenters,  bricklayers,  plumbers,  plas- 
terers and  stonemasons  in  a  number  of  districts.  The  report  states: 
"In  the  majority  of  these  trades  there  have  been  recent  advances  in 
wages  which  are  attributed  to  trade  union  efforts  and  in  some  cases  to 
the  effect  of  strikes. ' '  ' 

The  advance  spoken  of  was  not  shown  to  be  universal,  or  of  any  con- 
siderable amount.  After  taking  this  into  consideration  a  comparison  of 
the  wages  of  this  class  of  skilled  laborers  in  1892,  with  former  periods  is. 
as  follows: 

Weekly  Earnings  in  the  Following  Occupations. 


Occupations. 


Bricklayers,  .... 

Masons,      

Carpenters,    .... 

Painters 

Plumbers, 

Compositors — 

Job  work,  .  .  . 
Morning  paper. 
Evening  paper, 


I684 
756 


8  46 
II  52 


I7  20  to  $7  68 

6  48  to  7  20 

6  48  to  7  20 

6  24  to  6  96 

6  48  to  7  20 


I780 
7  74 
7  68 
7  43 
7  80 

7  44 
10  14 

8  28 


The  wages  for  1833  are  taken  from  Porter's  "Progress  of  the  Na- 
tion. ' '  ^  The  wages  of  carpenters,  bricklayers,  and  plumbers  were  those 
paid  by  the  Greenwich  Hospital.  It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  the 
wages  paid  at  Greenwich  Hospital  were  perhaps  higher  than  the  general 
average  of  the  country.  Those  for  1853  are  taken  from  the  "Charter  of 
the  Nations,"^  being  the  wages  paid  "by  one  of  the  largest  building  firms 
in  Lancashire. ' '  Those  for  1 892  are  the  average  wages  given  by  the 
Royal  Commission  on  Labor  for  the  United  Kingdom.* 

In  addition  to  the  low  wages  of  this  class  of  artisans  they  suffer  from 
certain  deductions  and  lack  of  employment.  Upon  this  point  the  Commis- 
sion stated:^  "Brickmakers,  bricklayers,  and  stonemasons  appear  to 
suffer  most  in  this  respect,  and  are  .said  to  be  employed  six  months  in 
the  year  and  stopped  in  wet  weather,  or  to  be  fairly  well  employed  in 
the  summer  and  subject  to  starvation  in  the  winter.  Similar  complaints 
were  made  with  regard  to  painters." 


:.  on  Labor,  I'-inal  Report.     Part  II.,  page  283. 
al  Report.     Part  II.,  p.  282.        Md.,  p.  285. 


i  Pp.  443  and  I, 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


It  also  appeared  that  other  trades,  such  as  coopers,  depended  upon 
the  prosperity  of  other  industries  for  steadj-  work.  Railroad  fare  and  cost 
of  tools  were  complained  of  as  deductions  affecting  these  trades.  It 
appeared  also  that  there  was  an  advance  in  wages  in  mining  iron  and 
quarrying  from  1887  to  1892,  although  there  was  less  day's  work  and 
the  yearly  earnings  would  not  show  the  same  increase  as  the  day  rate. 
Through  the  perfection  of  labor  organizations  in  certain  districts  the 
wages  of  lithographers  were  also  advanced.  It  is  a  notable  fact  that  the 
few  instances  of  recent  advances  in  wages  reported  by  the  commission 
were  due  to  the  efforts  of  labor  organizations  and  were  confined  to  those 
trades  which  are  not  directly  subjected  to  the  degrading  influences  of  the 
free  import  of  competing  commodities. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  blacksmiths,  bricklayers,  masons, 
carpenters,  painters,  plumbers  and  compositors  are  subjected  only  to  the 
competition  of  those  mechanics  engaged  in  similar  occupations;  while 
those  artisans  working  in  iron  and  textile  industries  must  hold  their 
places  against  other  laborers  who  are  bidding  for  the  same  jobs,  and  at 
the  same  time  there  is  another  force  operating  to  bear  down  and  keep 
down  their  wages.  They  are  compelled  to  sell  the  produce  of  their  labor 
in  competition  with  similar  articles  made  by  the  labor  of  all  countries  not 
only  in  foreign  markets  but  at  home.     As  Brassey  says: 

The  rate  of  wages  in  England  is  limited  by  the  necessity  of  competition  with 
foreign  manufacturers.  Employers  in  England,  as  elsewhere,  only  employ  labor  on 
the  assumption  that  they  can  realize  a  profit  by  their  business  ;  and  in  the  engineering 
trade,  in  consequence  of  the  impossibility  of  increasing  the  cost  of  production  without 
losing  our  trade  in  the  neutral  markets,  it  has  not  until  lately  been  possible  to  make 
an  advance  of  wages.  On  the  other  hand,  the  active  competition  between  the  numer- 
ous bodies  of  manufacturers  in  the  country  has  reduced  profits  to  a  rate  so  moderate 
that,  if  it  were  to  be  further  reduced,  the  trade  would  no  longer  oflFer  any  inducements 
for  the  investment  of  capital.' 

The  foregoing  statement  was  written  about  the  year  1871.  It 
proves  that  wherever  we  get  an  expression  from  an  experienced  busi- 
ness man,  we  find  that  the  cost  of  labor  is  such  a  large  element  in  man- 
ufacturing that  the  price  at  which  articles  must  be  sold  when  placed  on  the 
markets  of  the  world  controls  the  wages  which  the  employer  must  paj'. 
"While  this  is  true  of  those  employments  subjected  to  such  competi- 
tion it  does  not  apply  to  the  same  extent  to  those  skilled  mechanics 
named  in  the  above  table,  who  enjoy  a  degree  of  natural  protection. 
Carpenters,  bricklayers,  etc.,  of  England  are  thoroughly  organized  into 
strong  unions,  the  members  of  which  practically  monopolize  the  work  in 
their  several  districts.  They  are  able  to  limit  the  members  of  the  organ- 
izations, and  to  control  the  work  which  falls  within  their  several  occu- 
pations in  the  various  cities  and  districts  of  the  country.     Yet  it  appears 

'  Work  and  Wages,  p.  155 


affected 


JiETUBN  TO  FBEE  TRADE. 


ml 


2  J  JU  H  o 


^    ^ 


g| 


■37U?J 


-  i  s 


S-CO'^'S  roCvwS     •'5>      'S 


:S.'i?.'§'R^>R'S'a'g'g.S'RS-8>S    'S    'R8 


3000000000000000  o  00 


I'S'ig'g-RS^S.S.S    %    %?. 


saffliS inn's i,ii.i?,  ?=  5s 


S222°22S222S£222    2    S2 
S,8'8  8'S>S-vS->S-?-2-S"S.g8f!.2    ^^    ?? 


ooooooo?o|oo|ooo     o     II 


i222222222222222    2    Z2 


5ll^S^SKsi 


FREE  TBADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


I 


that  the  influences  which  have  operated  against  all  classes  of  labor  since 
the  adoption  of  free  trade  have  prevented  any  material  advance  in  the 
wage  rate  of  this  class  of  workmen. 

Even  in  ship-building  with  all  the  superior  facilities  and  advantages 
which  are  possessed  by  the  English  people,  wages  of  ship-builders  are 
substantially  the  same  as  they  were  in  1851.  The  table  opposite  show- 
ing the  wages  in  ship-yards  from  1851  to  1894  is  very  conclusive.  The 
rates  paid  in  the  ship-yards  of  the  Milwall  Iron  Works  were  furnished 
Brassey  from  the  books  of  the  concern.  The  wages  given  for  1894 
are  reported  by  the  Hon.  Thomas  Horan,  Consular  Agent  of  the  United 
States  Government  in  June,  1894,  upon  investigation  made  by  him  into 
the  wages  paid  at  that  time  in  Sunderland  ship-yards.  Those  for  1892 
were  taken  from  the  recent  report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor. 

The  Royal  Commission  on  Labor  in  referring  to  the  wages  paid  in  the 
cotton  and  woolen  industry,  said: 

The  difficulty  which  attends  any  attempt  to  summarize  the  evidence  received  with 
regard  to  wages  is  rendered  peculiarly  great  in  the  textile  trades  by  the  complexity 
of  the  processes  involved  in  them  and  the  consequent  great  division  of  labor  and 
multiplicity  of  classes  of  workers.  Amongst  these  classes  it  is  only  with  regard  to  the 
v^ages  of  zveavers  and  spinners  in  the  cotton  and  woolen  industries  that  the  informa- 
tion received  is  sufficiently  full  to  form  the  basis  of  any  general  statements.  And  even 
ill  these  cases  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  as  pointed  out  by  the  witnesses  themselves 
the  averages  given  are  merely  more  or  less  rough  approximations.  Since  the  wages 
earned  by  each  operative  depend  not  only  upon  his  or  her  own  skill  and  industry,  but 
also  upon  the  size  and  the  number  of  machines  tended,  and  the  speed  at  which  they 
run  ;  upon  the  quality  of  material  supplied  and  the  nature  of  the  goods  to  be  pro- 
duced, and  upon  the  number  of  assistants  required  and  the  wages  paid  to  them.  So 
far  as  information  with  regard  to  the  wages  of  these  four  classes  of  workers  can  be 
obtained  from  either  oral  or  written  evidence  it  is  shown  in  the  four  following  tables  : 

Table  I. 
Return  op  Wages  of  Weavers  in  the  Cotton  Industry. 


District. — Lancashire. 


Northeast  Lancashire, 
Burnley,  ..... 

Blackburn 

Haslingden,    .... 


Adult  males  and  females 


Wages  per  V7eek. 


In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to  contrast  the  wages  disclosed  by 
the  above  table  with  the  wages  paid  to  the  same  class  of  labor  in  1852  in 

1  Final  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  235. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


an  establishment  in  Manchester  employing  nearly  looo  hands  in  weav- 
ing cotton  goods,  which  was  taken  from  the  books  of  the  concern  and  set 
forth  in  the  ' '  Charter  of  the  Nations, ' '   as  follows : 

Warpers 24^.  to  255.  .  .  $5.76  to  $6.00 

Drawers-in    ....  iS^-.  to  265.  .  .     4.32  to    6.24 

Weavers 225.  .  .     5.28 

Overlookers  ....  25^.  .  .     6.00' 

With  reference  to  the  wages  of  cotton  spinners  in  1892,  the  Labor 
Commission  saj's:  "Very  little  evidence  was  given  with  regard  to  the 
wages  of  spinners  in  the  cotton  industry,  and  it  will  be  noticed  in  the 
following  table  that  when  rates  of  wages  have  been  quoted  for  spinners 
in  the  oral  or  written  evidence,  these  were  for  districts  other  than  those 
for  which  the  wages  of  weavers  have  been  quoted." 

Table  II. 

Retusns  of  Wages  of  Spinners  in  the  Cotton  Industry. 


District  of  Lancashire. 

Class  of  Workmen. 

Wages  per 

Week. 

Lancashire  and  parts  of  adjoining  counties, 
Bolton                             

Minders,  men  only, 

i  6 

31 

f8.4o 
9.00 

7-44' 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  commission  makes  reference  only  to  the 
highest  paid  class  of  male  workers  in  any  department  of  the  textile 
industry,  and  in  only  a  few  districts.  And  this  based  as  stated  upon 
"verj'  little  evidence."  If  we  go  back  to  the  "Progress  of  the  Nations," 
page  194,  we  find  that  Mr.  Porter  gives  the  average  wages  paid  to  cotton 
spinners  in  England  in  the  years  stated  below  as  follows: 


[804 
[814 
1833 


325.  6d.  to  36J.  6d. 
445.  6d.  to  60s. 
33^.  id.  to  425.  gd. 


$  7.80  to  $  8.76 
10.68  to  14.40 
8.08  to    10.26 


The  foregoing  from  Mr.  Porter's  work  shows  the  wages  of  spinners 
to  have  been  higher  in  1833  than  at  the  present  time. 

We  find  also  in  the  report  of  the  Labor  Commission  the  following 
table  of  wages  earned  by  women  in  the  cotton  industry  in  the  United 
Kingdom : 

'  r.  175.        =  Final  Report,  Part  II,,  p.  235, 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A   FAILURE. 


Tablb  of  Wages  Earnp 


Women  in  the  Cotton  Industry. 


Class  of  Work 


Weavers, 


Spinners, 

Skilled  hands, 

Piece-work,  heavy  frame, 

"     single  frame, 

One  heavy  and  one  light 

frame, 

Li,c;ht  frame,  coupled,    .    . 
single,    .    .    . 
Spinners !  Bridgeton,  Glasgow, 


Lancashire  and  Cheshire,  . 


|2.oo  and  ; 
4.84 
2-33 


Card-room, 
Card-room  workers. 


Calico  weavers. 
Cotton  spinners, 


Lancashire  and  Cheshire, 

Bridgeton 

Johnstone, 

Lancashire  and  Cheshire, 

Lanark, 

Kilmarnock,  ..... 

Lanark 

Johnstone, 


342 

From  $2 

3.60 

2.94 

"       3 

2.16 

3-42 

2 

3.12 

2 

2,64 

"       2 

2.40 

2. 

a.40 

I 

There  is  no  evidence  presented  in  the  final  report  of  the  commis- 
sion which  proves  that  any  material  advance  has  been  made  in  the  wages 
of  operatives  in  the  cotton  industry,  when  the  wages  which  have  pre- 
vailed during  the  past  ten  years  is  compared  with  earlier  periods.  The 
condition  which  brought  about  the  reductions  in  wages  as  disclosed  by 
the  evidence  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Trade  and  Industry  in  1885 
have  continued,  and  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  the  wage  rate  which  pre- 
vailed prior  to  such  reductions  has  not  been  restored. 

The  third  table  referred  to  by  the  commission  relates  to  the  wages 
of  woolen  weavers  in  1892.     It  is  as  follows: 

Table  III. 
Returns  of  Wages  of  Weavers  in  the  Wooi<en  Industry. 


District.- 

-Yorkshire. 

Class  for  which  Mean  is  Given. 

Wage.s  per 

Week. 

Guiseley, 

Adult  males  and  females,  .    .    . 

i.    d. 

17    6 

17     0 
13     4 

10    0 

3-20 

2.40 

Bradford,     . 

Batley  and  the 

'  heavy  woolen  " 

It  appeared  that  a  more  thorough  investigation  was  made  into  the 
wages  paid  to  woolen  weavers  than  occurred  with  reference  to  the  cotton 
industry,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  statement  of  the  commission : 

>  Royal  Commission  on  I,abor,  Final  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  487. 
23 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

The  Huddersfield  Weavers'  Association  gives  the  average  wage  of  adult  weavers 
in  full  employment  as  from  i8^.  to  24s.  (I4.32  to  I5.76)  and  during  slack  time  as  from 
los.  to  16^.,  (I2.40  to  153.84).  The  average  of  these  various  rates  has  been  taken  as  the 
average  rate  of  earnings  of  an  adult  weaver  during  the  year.  The  arithmetic  means 
of  the  wages  quoted  for  fully  employed  male  and  female  weavers  in  this  district  by 
Mr.  Thomson  and  Messrs.  Armitage  and  Cleland,  are  2o.f.  and  21s.  loyid.  (I4.80  and 
I5.25)  respectively,  and  this  seems  to  show  that  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  rates 
quoted  above  for  weavers  in  full  employment,  viz.,  21s.  (I5.04)  is  a  fair  average.  The 
most  conflicting  evidence  given  with  regard  to  the  rate  of  wages  had  reference  to  the 
Bradford  district.  It  was  stated  by  Mr.  Drew  that  the  average  rate  of  a  weaver's 
earnings  in  this  district  was  gj.  (I2.16)  a  week,  but  according  to  the  returns  from  118 
employers  in  response  to  an  inquiry  issued  by  a  joint  committee  appointed  by  the 
Bradford  Chamber  of  Commerce  to  investigate  this  question,  the  average  earnings  of  a 
weaver  for  the  year  1891  were  13.J.  3.8401^.  ($3. 18).  Two  other  witnesses  representing 
the  Bradford  Power  Loom  Weavers'  Association  stated,  however,  that  this  average  was 
too  high,  and  this  society  stated  in  the  written  answers  to  the  schedule  of  questions 
that  wages  range  from  55.  to  15.S.  (|i.2o  to  f3.6o)  weekly,  according  to  the  state  of 
trade.  A  representative  of  the  West  Riding  of  York.shire  Weavers'  Association  stated 
that  los.  ($2.40)  would  be  a  fair  average  for  a  weaver's  wages  throughout  the  year  in 
the  Batley  and  heavy  woolen  weaving  district,  but  this  average  is  probably  rather  too 
low,  as  the  Weavers'  Association  for  this  district  quotes  12s.  ($2.88)  as  "a  conunon 
rate  of  earnings, "  ' 

The  foregoing  statement  shows  what  was  revealed  in  the  Bradford 
and  Batley  districts  b)'  a  fuller  investigatiiDU  of  the  question.  The 
controversj-  raised  by  Mr.  Drew,  president  of  the  Bradford  and  Di.strict 
Labor  Union,  who  in  his  testimony  before  the  commission  stated  that 
the  average  wages  of  weavers  in  this  district  would  no.t;  exceed  95.  ($2. 16 ) 
per  week,  resulted  in  the  appointment  of  a  committee  consisting  of  seven 
members  of  the  Bradford  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  had  challenged 
Mr.  Drew's  statement,  and  an  equal  number  of  representatives  of  the 
working  classes  selected  by  the  Yorkshire  Weavers'  Association,  the 
Power  Loom  Overlookers'  Association,  and  the  Trades  and  Labor  Coun- 
cils. The  committee  immediately  entered  upon  its  investigation,  and 
addressed  circulars,  from  which  they  received  replies  representing  11,779 
weavers,  in  1890,  and  11,625  in  1891,  bearing  on  the  question.  When 
the  returns  were  all  in,  chartered  accountants,  basing  their  calcula- 
tions upon  the  returns,  reported  that  the  average  wages  of  weavers  per 
week  in  1890,  was  13.?.  s.SSo'.  (about  $3.24).  For  1S91  13.?.  3.84(/.  (about 
$3.18).  The  labor  representative  on  the  commission  urged  that  ilic 
result  of  the  inquiry  did  not  fairly  represent  the  situation.  That  the 
inquiry  was  confined  to  only  11,779  weavers,  when  in  fact  there  were  o\er 
30,000  in  the  district.  Again,  that  the  replies  were  received  from  those 
employers  who  had  been  most  prosperous  in  business,  had  the  .smallest 
percentage  of  broken  time  and  paid  the  highest  rate  of  wages,  while  these 
who  withheld  information  by  failing  to  reply  to  the  communication  of 
the  investigating  committee  were  those  who  paid  the  lowest  wages. 

'  Royal  Commission  on  Labor,  Final  Report,  Pari  II.,  p.  236. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


In  referring  to  the  attitude  of  the  weavers  upon  this  question,  Mr. 
Tibbittssaid: 

At  a  public  meeting  held  on  Sunday  last  under  the  auspices  of  the  Bradford  and 
District  Labor  Union,  the  president  of  that  organization,  by  way  of  discrediting  the 
report  of  the  committee  of  inquiry,  stated  that  he  had  received  returns  from  upwards 
of  one  thousand  weavers  as  to  the  wages  received  by  them  for  the  first  five  weeks  of 
the  present  year.  These  returns,  he  intimated,  although  he  did  not  make  a  positive 
statement  to  that  effect,  disclosed  average  weekly  earnings  of  less  than  gi.  (|2.i6). 
He  had  previously  explained  that  his  testimony  before  the  Royal  Commission  that  the 
average  wages  did  not  exceed  95-.  per  week  was  not  intended  to  apply  to  weavers  of 
worsted  coatings,  and  at  the  Sunday  meeting  he  neglected  to  state  whether  weavers 
of  that  class  of  goods  were  included  in  the  one  thousand  individual  returns  received 
by  him.  The  natural  inference  is  that  those  returns  were  confined  to  weavers  of  other 
fabrics  than  worsted  coatings,  who,  as  a  rule,  undoubtedly  received  lower  wages  than 
are  paid  in  the  worsted  trade.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  admitted  that  these 
individual  returns  raise  additional  doubts  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  estimates  submitted 
by  the  committee  of  inciuir3'. 

A  thorough  and  impartial  investigation  of  the  subject  will,  it  is  believed,  show 
that  the  actual  average  wages  are  somewhere  between  the  extremes  that  have  been 
named  (fe.  18  and  $2. 16).  There  is  little  reason,  however,  to  expect  that  such  an  inves- 
tigation will  be  had  in  the  near  future,  unless  it  is  conducted  under  the  immediate 
supervision  of  the  government.  It  has  been  sufficiently  demonstrated  that,  so  far 
concerns  the  Bradford  trade,  an  inquiry  conjointly  conducted  by  employers  and 
employes  is  not  likely  to  bring  out  the  truth. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  it  may  be  stated  that  a  large  majority  of  the  weavers 
employed  in  the  Bradford  trade  are  women.  The  average  earnings  of  male  weavers, 
however,  are  not  claimed  to  be  any  greater  than  those  of  females.  As  a  rule,  each 
weaver  minds  two  looms.  The  president  of  the  committee  of  inquiry  testified  before 
the  Royal  Commission  that  "three-loom  weavers  are  ver>-  rare."  There  is,  however, 
reason  to  believe  that  the  number  of  three-loom  weavers  has  been  materially  increased 
in  this  district  since  the  McKinley  tariff  went  into  eSect.  ' 

With  reference  to  the  wages  of  spinners  in  the  woolen  mills  we  have 
the  following,  from  the  Royal  Commission:'  "The  evidence  given  with 
regard  to  the  wages  of  spinners  in  the  woolen  and  worsted  industries  is 
less  satisfactory  than  that  with  regard  to  any  of  the  three  classes  already 
dealt  with.  So  far  as  any  information  has  been  obtained,  it  is  contained 
in  the  following  table: 

Table  IV. 
Returns  of  Wages  of  Spinners  in  the  Woolen  Industry. 


Huddersfield 

Batley  and  the  "  hea\'j-  woolen  " 
district,    


Class  for  which  Mean  is  Given.  Wages  per  Week 


Spinners,  men  only, 


Spinners,  chiefly  women  and 
girls,  


s.  d. 

25  o  |6.oo 

23  6  5.64 

9  6  2.28 


1  Report  of  Hon.  John  A.  Tibbitts,  United  States  Consul  of  Bradford  District,  Feb.  19,  1892.    U.  S. 
Consul  Report,  No.  140.  May,  1892,  p.  182.       =  Royal  Commission  on  I,abor,  Final  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  236. 


RETUEiV  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


9      °^     S 


s  s  s  s 

b    li.    U<    b 


^    e 


11 


w   '^ 


g     E     S     E     E     E 
°    £    S    S    £    £ 

b     b     b     b     &<     b 


S    1 


I  £  ^  fi  S 


FREE  TBADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  table  on  page  356  shows  the  wages  earned  by  women  in  the 
woolen  industrj'. 

It  is  no  reflection  on  the  good  faith  of  the  Ro}-al  Commission  on 
Labor  to  state  that  the  average  rates  of  wages  presented  in  their  report 
to  parliament,  especiallj'  in  the  textile  and  iron  industries,  are  higher 
than  a  full  and  fair  investigation  of  the  facts  would  have'  revealed.  The 
commission  was  made  up  largely  of  free  traders.  A  disposition  is  shown 
all  through  to  make  as  favorable  a  showing  as  possible  for  the  countrj-. 
The  commission  apparentlj'  accepted  the  replies  which  were  received 
from  employers  and  employed  and  from  such  returns  made  up  their  esti- 
mates, without  attempting  to  investigate  those  who  withheld  their 
answers.  Again,  it  was  fully  established  that  the  estimates  of  wage  rates 
presented  by  free  trade  statisticians,  especially  in  the  textile  afid  all  com- 
peting industries,  was  much  higher  than  those  actually  prevailing.  The 
investigation  referred  to  proved  that  the  wages  of  weavers  were  actually 
about  one-half  of  the  figures  presented  by  Mr.  Giffen,  of  the  Board  of 
Trade.  With  a  sharp  controversy  existing  at  the  present  time  in  Eng- 
land as  to  the  actual  rate  of  wages  paid  in  competing  industries,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  arrive  at  the  truth.  With  an  official  investigating 
committee  appointed  by  parliament  skimming  over  the  subject  and 
stating  that  the  result  of  their  inquiry  is  based  on  "very  little  evidence, " 
we  cannot  place  much  confidence  in  the  results,  especially  as  it  appeared 
that  a  thorough  investigation  was  attempted  only  in  relation  to  the 
woolen  weavers  and  this  conducted  in  such  a  manner,  that  it  resulted 
in  dissatisfaction  and  left  the  final  conclusion  of  $3. 18  a  week  challenged 
by  the  wage-earners.  No  candid  or  impartial  inquirer  can  examine 
the  proceedings  of  this  commission  without  arriving  at  the  conclusion 
that  in  those  industries  in  which  wages  are  the  lowe.st,  those  which  are 
brought  in  direct  competition  with  Germany,  France  and  other  countries, 
those  which  have  been  most  seriously  affected  bj'  the  policy  of  free  trade, 
such  an  investigation  was  evaded  as  would  have  disclosed  the  real 
condition  of  the  wage-earners. 

But  notwithstanding  the  foregoing  consideration,  we  have  from  the 
commission  an  admission  that  wages  have  been  reduced.     It  said : 

A  further  complaint  from  the  woolen  weavers  relates  to  the  decrease  of  wages 
which  has  followed  upon  the  increased  speed  of  the  looms.  The  rate  of  payment  has 
been  reduced  by  one-third  on  the  ground  that  the  fast  looms  produce  proportionately 
more  in  a  given  time.  This  would  be  true  if  the  work  produced  were  in  proportion 
to  the  speed  of  the  loom,  but  in  consequence  of  the  more  frequent  stoppages,  and  the 
time  lost  in  breakdowns  and  changing  the  caps  and  shuttles,  etc. ,  in  the  case  of  fast 
looms,  the  work  is  not  in  proportion  to  their  speed,  and  actual  wages  have  therefore 
been  diminished.  1 


'  Roval  Coinmis 


I  Labor.  Final  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  237. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Is 


ai 

i 
* 

%^'i 

-s 

•S'S^'2     % 

■J. 

Si. 

t 

5>i 

4i 

C  M  M  p.      ^ 

" 

- 

- 

a  a 

? 

o   S 

fi 

EESE^S 

H 

p 

2 

HS 

?? 

?: 

P 

H 

}^ 

f^ 

"u. 

fen.  6.x  fid. 

u. 

•Sill's  ,5] 


Mil 


-  ■--  -S"'^ 


III! 


2Js^^. 


•fiileillii 


:'S2'8,  =§    ^    g    S 


S     E     SEES     SEES        2 
g    S     £S££    S     S    S    £       £ 

C[,lJ,ti.li.Ii.S,li.B.Ii.tf.         B. 


"   ""£  fiafi  aa 


r  ■?  ^    'T    "?    "?^  "^  ^ 


g    S    .^    ^ 


&e2 
all 
^T;'S2-Sg 


^i 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  report  further  states  that  "complaints  of  fluctuations  in  wages 
due  to  irregularity  of  employment  come  chiefly  from  the  woolen  trade. 
Slack  times  are  said  to  be  frequent,  owing  to  foreign  tariffs." 

The  jute,  silk,  carpet,  and  dyeing  industries  received  such  a  slight 
notice  that  there  are  not  suflBcient  data  presented  in  the  summary  attached 
to  their  final  report  to  warrant  definite  conclusions  with  regard  to  the 
most  important  conditions  under  which  the  industries  are  carried  on. 
The  report,  however,  states  with  reference  to  these  industries  that, 

lu  the  jute  industry  at  Dundee  two  manufacturers  quoted  the  average  wages  paid 
to  their  spinners  as  155-.  (fe.6o)  to  17^'.  (|4-oS)  and  10s.  ($2.40)  to  13^.  go'.  ($3.30), 
respectively,  and  the  president  of  the  Dundee  Factory  Operatives'  Union  stated  that  the 
wages  of  jute  spinners  were  higher  at  Dundee  than  at  Barrow,  where  they  earned  10.9. 
td.  (,12.58)  a  week.  Weavers'  wages  in  the  jute  industry  were  said  by  one  manufac- 
turer at  Dundee  to  average  i5.j.  9^/.  ($^.02),  whilst  a  representative  of  the  Forfar  Factory 
Workers'  Union  gave  the  average  wages  for  weavers  as  iSj.  ($4-32)  for  four  looms;  15.S. 
(I3.60)  for  three  looms,  and  from  135-.  ($3.12)  to  20.S.  ($4.80)  for  two  looms,  accord- 
ing to  the  size  of  the  machines.     Only  women  are  employed  in  weaving  jute. 

With  reference  to  carpet  industry^  the  commission  stated  : 

Evidence  was  given  by  only  one  representative  of  the  carpet  industry,  a  manu- 
facturer at  Bridgnorth,  who  stated  that  in  his  own  factory  the  wages  of  male  weavers 
averaged  from  32.?.  (I7.68)  to  35.?.  (I8.40)  a  week,  and  those  of  female  weavers 
from  12^.  (I2.88)  to  15.S.  (I3.60).  The  Aberdeen  Carpet  Weavers'  Association  states 
that  the  average  wages  are  17^.  (>d.  (I4.20)  a  week,  fluctuating  from  33J.  (I7.92)  to 
105.  ($2.40). 

The  representatives  of  the  Bradford  Society  of  Dyers  stated  that  the  average  wages 
in  that  industry  were  now  from  14.?.  (I3.36)  to  16s.  (fe-So)  or  iSi.  (|4-32)  a  week, 
although  experienced  hands  earned  about  24s.  ($5.76)  a  week.  Formerly,  however, 
245.  was  a  general  average.  An  employer  engaged  in  the  dyeing  and  finishing  indus- 
try in  Leicester  stated  that  the  average  wages  of  the  men  employed  by  him  during 
the  last  year  had  amounted  to  305.  ($7.20)  a  head. 

A  more  complete  investigation  was  made  into  the  wages  of  women 
in  the  textile  industries  and  other  occupations  in  which  they  are  so 
largely  employed.  The  table  on  page  358,  showing  the  wages  earned  by 
women  in  miscellaneous  textile  industries,  was  copied  from  the  Final 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission. 

Upon  the  inquiry  which  was  made  into  the  wages  of  women  the 
report  makes  the  following  statement : 

The  mean  of  the  returns  collected  for  woman  in  i85o-6i  in  the  Kidderminster 
carpet,  pottery,  tobacco,  etc.,  rope-making,  shoddy  and  flock  trades  was  95.  id.  The 
mean  in  1891  was  8j.  lid.  If  these  statistics  are  to  be  trusted,  and  so  far  as  the  mean 
of  the  returns  can  be  taken  as  representing  true  averages,  women's  wages  in  those 
trades  would  seem  to  have  not  merely  been  stationary,  but  to  have  positively 
decreased.  It  appears  probable  that  if  the  information  concerning  the  alleged  decline 
in  wages  in  the  confectionery,  umbrella-covering  and  straw-hat  trades  were  suffi- 
ciently reliable,  and  covered  a  sufficiently  long  period  to  be  taken  into  account,  the 
same  conclusion  might  be  drawn  from  a  larger  number  of  industries.     The  means  of 


carpet  and 

dyeing 

industries. 


RETURX  ro  FKEE  TRADE. 


the  returns  given  in  i85o-6i  in  the  above-mentioned  trades,  and  also  in  the  boot  and 
shoe  and  worsted  industries,  which  group  represents  the  greatest  number  of  industries 
under  consideration,  both  skilled  and  unskilled  (excluding  the  organized  industries), 
was  Si.  lid.  In  1S91  it  was  95.  90?.;  it  had,  therefore,  increased  by  only  9  per  cent. 
The  apparently  arbitrary  selection  of  the  industries  which  furnish  data  for  these  com- 
parisons is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  necessary  information  was  only  forthcoming 
these  instances.  Women's  wages  in  the  industries  under  consideration,  except  in 
certain  skilled  and  organized  trades,  have  either  decreased,  remained  stationary,  or 
have  increased  but  slightly.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  the  case  that  the  number  of  women 
engaged  in  the  organized  industries  is  so  large  that  the  gain  there  relatively  greater 
than  that  obtained  by  the  men,  would  outweigh  the  comparatively  stationary  rate 
of  wages  in  the  other  industries.  In  the  Census  Returns  for  1891,  it  appeared  that 
while  the  number  of  women  in  the  cotton  industry  was  nearly  333,000,  the  number  of 
women  employed  in  all  the  other  industries  enumerated  in  Table  V  amounted  to 
about  370,000.  Taking  this  into  account  in  finding  the  averages  over  the  whole  period, 
women's  wages  would  probably  appear  to  have  risen  faster  than  men's.  On  the  other 
hand  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  industries  mentioned  in  Table  V  includes  less 
than  800,000  women  workers  out  of  a  total  of  more  than  1,800,000- in  the  industrial 
class.  The  wages  of  a  million  women,  therefore,  in  the  industrial  class,  that  is  exclud- 
ing domestic  service,  remained  unaccounted  for;  and  the  evidence  obtained  both  by 
the  House  of  Lords'  committee  and  by  the  lady  assistant  commissioners  and 
from  other  sources,  went  to  show  that  this  large  proportion  of  women  belonged 
rather  to  the  body  of  unorganized  and  underpaid  workers  than  organized  and  better 
paid. ' 

The  industries  referred  to  in  Table  V,  mentioned  above,  are  as  fol- 
lows: Cotton  industry,  boot  and  shoe  industry,  hosiery,  carpet  industry 
(1880,  Kidderminster),  silk  and  poplin  (1859-62),  linen,,  jute,  etc.  (1859- 
61),  woolen  industry,  worsted  industry,  book-folding,  book-sewing,  etc., 
potteries,  tobacco,  etc.,  manufactures,  rope-making,  shoddy  and  flock 
manufacture. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  even  the  claim  of  an  increase  of  wages  in 
the  cotton  and  worsted  industries  from  1861  to  1892  should  be  subjected 
to  a  most  careful  examination  before  such  results  are  accepted.  The 
severe  competition  to  which  the  operatives  in  cotton  mills  have  been  sub- 
jected during  the  past  twenty  years,  is  known  to  have  had  a  most  depress- 
ing effect  on  their  earnings.  Again,  reliable  returns  from  the  earlier 
periods  are  difficult  to  obtain  for  such  comparisons.  But  the  adnii,ssion 
contained  in  the  foregoing  statement  of  the  commission  showing  that  the 
wage  scale  in  1892  is  below  that  of  1861  in  some  industries,  while  the 
1,000,000  workers  not  taken  into  account  in  other  industries  have  con- 
cededly  suffered  from  reduced  pay,  should  not  be  lost  sight  of,  when  the 
question  of  the  comparative  rate  of  wages  is  being  considered.  It  may 
be  well  also  to  mention  the  fact  that  home  indu.stries  or  "sweated  trades," 
as  they  are  called,  are  being  largely  carried  on  as  laborers  are  crowded 
out  of  factories  and  as  the  body  of  unemployed  increases.  As  to  the 
wages  earned  in  home  trades  the  commission  .said: 

■  Fiual  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  483. 


FHEE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  average  hourly  wage  of  out-workers  in  the  villages  round  Dudley  who  supplj' 
much  of  the  clothing  trade  of  that  town  was  i}id.  A  widow  in  Manchester  who 
"  finished  "  shirts  at  2;4c/.  a  dozen,  whatever  the  work  required  might  be,  could  never 
earn  more  than  2S.  2d.  a  week.  A  tailoress  in  Lambeth  "  finished  ' '  boys'  trousers  for 
31/.  a  pair,  out  of  which  id.  had  to  be  subtracted  for  thread  and  twist.  It  took  her 
two  and  one-half  hours  to  finish  one  pair,  so  her  rate  of  pay  was  less  than  id.  per  hour. 
In  the  hosiery  trade  a  woman  seamed  stockings  for  nine  hours  daih-,  and  if  she  worked 
verj'  hard  earned  }{d.  per  hour.  Her  average  weekly  earnings  were  ^s.  A  sack 
sewer  and  a  rope  teazer  at  Arbroath  stated  that  their  average  wages  were  about  y.  and 
3^.  6d.  a  week,  respectively.  It  was  stated  that  in  the  lace  trade  at  Nottingham  a  great 
quantity  of  work  which  was  formerly  done  inside  the  factories,  such  as  scalloping,  is 
now  given  out  at  reduced  prices.  An  employer  who  at  one  time  employed  fifty  women 
as  "  scallopers  "  in  his  factory,  most  of  whom  earned  iji.  a  week,  now  gives  out  this 
work  to  home  workers,  to  whom  he  pays  6.f.  or  -js.  a  week.  From  the  evidence  of  the 
out-workers  it  appeared  that  the  rate  of  payment  was  sometimes  as  low  as  Yzd.  per 
hour.  In  Glasgow  a  woman  was  found  who  did  tailoring  for  government  contracts. 
The  shop  which  gave  them  out  paid  2S.  2d.  per  dozen  for  making  Dungaree  jackets, 
the  dozen  taking  fourteen  hours.  Another  woman  "  finishes  "  them  for  ^d.  per  dozen, 
and  makes  perhaps  ' '  four  dozen  in  a  day. ' '  The  total  cost  to  the  shop  for  the  making 
and  finishing  a  dozen  of  these  jackets  by  outside  workers  was  therefore  25.  dd.  In- 
.spectors'  "  overalls"  were  also  given  out  at  45.  &d.,  and  certain  "overall  "  trousers  at 
IS.  dd.  per  dozen.  The  witness  said  that  she  could  make  six  inspectors'  "overalls  "  in 
a  day,  or  three  pairs  of  "  overall  "  trousers,  /.  e.,  she  could  earn  25.  \d.  or  bd.  for  the 
day's  work.  In  all  the  cases  quoted  above  the  information  was  received  from  the 
home  workers  personalh'.  One  of  the  worst  cases  of  sweating  was  that  related  by  the 
secretary'  of  the  Shirtmakers'  Union  of  Manchester.  A  man  in  Gorton  had  a  work- 
room for  which  he  paid  55.  (>d.  a  week.  He  took  out  work  from  Manchester,  and 
employed  women  in  this  workroom  at  shirtmaking.  He  made  them  pay  id.  for  rent 
and  id.  for  fire,  and  a  certain  sum  for  cotton,  which  was  lYzd.  more  than  the  price  in 
retail  shops  in  Manchester.  The  women  also  paid  is.  a  week  for  the  use  of  the 
machine,  no  matter  how  slack  the  work  might  be.  Although  they  were  nominalh- 
buying  the  machines  on  the  hire  system,  they  were  never  employed  regularly  or  long 
enough  to  become  the  owners.  Besides  all  these  deductions  he  only  paid  them  "jd.  a 
dozen  for  work  for  which  the  witness  had  been  paid  15.  by  another  finn  who  had  once 
employed  her, ' 

The  same  conditions  as  those  affecting  the  textile  industries  are  found 
to  prevail  among  the  artisans  employed  in  making  hardware,  cutlerj-  and 
in  the  various  branches  of  occupations  which  are  subjected  to  sharp  com- 
petition under  free  trade.  All  statistics  and  calculations  which  are  used 
to  prove  that  an  advance  in  wages  has  taken  place  in  the  United  Kingdom 
since  the  adoption  of  free  trade  should  be  carefully  weighed  and  accepted 
only  with  full  knowledge  of  the  manner  in  which  the  comparisons  are 
made  and  the  occupations  to  which  they  relate.  The  question  is  one 
which  during  the  past  fifteen  years  has  provoked  so  much  controversy 
and  has  given  rise  to  such  wide  differences  of  opinion  in  England  among 
well-informed  men,  that  it  is  certainly  involved  in  great  doubt  and  is  far 
from  being  a  settled  question.  It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  that  the 
advance  in  wages  since  1850  has  been  very  small,  even  in  those  occupations 

'Royal  Commission,  Final  Report,  Part  II.,  p,  483. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


in  which  it  has  taken  place.  It  is  apparent  that  the  statements  which 
have  so  frequently  been  made  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade  are  grossl}- 
exaggerated. 

The  slight  increase  which  accompanied  the  period  of  prosperity  from 
1869  to  1874,  has  been  reversed  by  the  excessive  competition  to  which 
the  industries  of  the  country  have  been  subjected.  The  proof  of  reduc- 
tions which  were  made  to  meet  foreign  competition,  found  in  the  answers 
of  Labor  Organizations,  Chambers  of  Commerce,  Business  Men's  Asso- 
ciations, and  the  evidence  of  manufacturers  and  artisans,  given  before  the 
Royal  Commission  in  1885,  which  have  been  quoted,  should  certainly  be 
conclusive  upon  this  point.  That  there  have  been  no  improvements  in 
this  respect  since  1884,  is  established  by  Mr.  Giflen  himself,  who  stated 
before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor  in  1894  that  no  material  change 
had  taken  place  since  1872.  Speaking  of  the  conditions  since  1872,  he 
is  reported  by  the  commission  to  have  said:  "Subsequently  to  that  date 
there  has  been  no  considerable  or  marked  rise  in  wages  generally, 
although  there  has  been  in  many  cases  a  certain  steady  rise,  and  certainly 
in  no  case  or  only  in  a  very  few  exceptional  cases,  have  these  wage  rates 
fallen  to  a  point  lower  than  their  average  level  of  twenty  years  ago.'" 
This  very  moderate  and  conservative  estimate  from  one  who  has  been 
so  criticised  by  his  fellow  countrymen  for  extravagant  and  inaccurate 
statements  upon  this  question,  is  very  significant.  From  this  it  would 
appear  that  the  old  level  of  wages  established  by  the  evidence  before 
the  Royal  Commis.sion  in  1885  still  prevails.  It  appeared  that  at  that 
time  wages  had  generally  fallen  to  the  level  of  1864. 

In  the  brief  space  which  mu,st  be  devoted  to  this  branch  of  the  sub- 
ject, it  is  impossible  to  enter  upon  an  extended  presentation  of  the  earn- 
ings of  British  artisans  in  the  various  industries.  Enough,  however, 
has  been  presented  of  the  most  authentic  character  to  show  that  they 
have  advanced  but  little  during  the  past  forty  years.  The  rate  of  wages 
given  for  skilled  artisans  in  the  several  schedules  presented  are  not  as 
high  as  those  paid  to  common  day  laborers  in  the  United  States.  The 
earnings  of  our  day  laborers  generally  throughout  the  countr3'  are  not 
less  than  $1.50  a  day,  or  $9.00  a  week,  and  in  many  instances  are  as 
high  as  $1.75  per  day,  while  carpenters,  masons,  bricklayers,  painters 
and  plumbers  receive  from  $2.50  to  $3.00  per  day,  and  artisans  of  the 
same  class  as  tho.se  named  in  the  schedules  presented,  receive  more  than 
twice  the  wages  paid  in  England  The  preparation  of  schedules  of 
wages,  representing  the  earnings  of  operatives  in  woolen,  cotton,  linen, 
silk,  lace,  and  other  textile  industries  is  beset  with  so  many  difficulties 
that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  arrive  at  accurate  results.  The  division 
of  labor  is  .so  complete,  each  operative  being  fitted  to  the  performance  of 
certain  .special  duties,  that  such  tasks  should  only  be  undertaken  by  a 

'  Kiiial  Report  of  Commission  on  Labor,  June-,  1S94,  pp.  9,  10. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


person  having  the  most  perfect  practical  knowledge  of  the  subject.  It 
has  been  difficult  for  official  investigating  committees,  receiving  their 
information  from  employers  and  employed,  to  arrive  at  satisfactory 
results.  The  refusal  of  some  labor  organizations  to  state  the  rates 
earned,  and  the  failure  of  many  others,  especially  in  textile  industries  to 
answer  questions  submitted,  indicated  a  desire  on  the  part  of  many,  to 
keep  from  the  world  the  real  state  of  affairs  which  exist.  Besides  this, 
the  commission  referred  to  (of  1885)  did  not  attempt  so  much  to  arrive 
at  the  rate  of  wages  paid,  as  to  ascertain  what  changes  have  taken  place 
during  the  twenty  years  covered  by  the  investigation.  But  enough,  how- 
ever, was  disclosed  to  show  a  most  appalling  condition  in  this  respect. 
As  has  already  been  pointed  out  it  appeared  that  men  in  silk  weaving 
were  paid  from  $2. 16  to  $2.40  a  week  and  women  from  $1.68  to  $1.80  a 
week.'  It  also  appeared  that  weavers  in  cotton  mills  were  working  for 
$3.60  a  week,'  and  that  an  investigation  of  the  Labor  Commission  recently 
held,  showed  that  woolen  weavers  were  earning  $3. 18  a  week  We  also 
have  the  statement  of  the  Children's  Sock  and  Stockingmakers,  that 
their  earnings  were  6^-.  or  $1.44  a  week.  The  Dublin  Flint  Glassmakers 
reported  to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Trade  that  they  were  making  135. 
or  $3. 12  a  week.  It  is  certainly  a  fact  that  the  wages  paid  in  free  trade 
England  are  a  disgrace  to  any  civilized  community  and  furnish  the 
strongest  condemnation  of  the  policy  of  free  trade.  The  above  are  not 
given  as  the  highest  earnings  of  operatives  in  the  textile  industries 
neither  are  they  believed  to  be  the  lowest.  In  this  connection  it  may  not 
be  out  of  place  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the  decided  advance  in 
wages  which  has  taken  place  in  the  United  States  under  protection. 

The  following  figures  compiled  by  the  Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  United 
States  Commissipner  of  Labor,  are  taken  from  his  article  in  the  Forum  of 
October,  1893,  entitled  "Cheaper  Living  and  the  Rise  of  Wages:" 

The  pay  of  laborers  is  quite  indicative  of  general  conditions.  In  1840  a  laborer  in 
a  large  brewery  in  the  city  of  New  York  received  62.5  cents  a  day;  in  i860,  84  cents 
day;  in  1866,  f  1.30  a  day;  in  1891,  from  $1.90  to  $2.  Compositors  who  worked  by  the 
day  received,  in  1840,  I1.50  ;  in  i860,  $2  ;  in  1S66,  from  $2.50  to  $3,  and  the  same  in 
1891.  These  quotations  are  for  a  well-known  establishment  in  the  State  of  Connecticut 
A  building  firm  in  Connecticut  paid  journeymen  carpenters  in  1840,  from  |[.25  to 
I1.62  a  day  ;  in  i860,  from  fi.25  to  $1.75  a  day  ;  in  1891,  from  S3  to  I3.25  a  day.  A 
firm  of  builders  in  New  York  paid,  in  1840  |i. 50  a  day;  in  i860,  |2;  in  1866,  $3  50; 
in  1S91,  I3.50.  Painters  received  the  same.  Similar  quotations  could  be  made  for 
carpenters  and  painters  in  diflferent  parts  of  the  Eastern  States.  The  rate  of  wages 
paid  towheelwright^were  in  1840,  I1.25;  in  i860,  fi. 25;  in  1866,  $2;  in  1891,12.50. 
Cotton  weavers  (women)  in  Massachusetts  earned,  in  1840,  on  the  average,  about  62 
cents  a  day;  in  1S60,  54.5  cents;  in  1866,  from  85  to  90  cents;  in  1891,  $1.05.  Women 
frame  spinners  were  paid  about  the  same,  earning  a  little  more  in  the  later  years. 
Wool  spinners,  both  jack  and  mule,  earned  less  than  |i  a  day  in  1840,  while  in  1S60 
they  eaVnedft.05;  in  1866,  from  $1.80  to  $1.90  a  day  ;  iniBgi,  from  |i. 38  to  |i. 75  a  day. 


:  of  Peter  Malkin,        =  Evidence  of  Thomas  Stuttard. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


compensate 
for  reduced 


The  average  earnings  of  puddlers  have  been  subject  to  great  variations.  An  aver- 
age must  be  used  here  because  puddlers  are  paid  largely  by  the  ton.  In  1S40,  at  ^tiia, 
Pa.,  puddlers  earned  $3.69  a  day;  in  1S60,  I2.67  a  day;  in  1866,  from  I5.37  to  I6.04  a 
day  ;  in  1S91,  #3.67.  In  another  iron  works  at  Duncannon,  Pa.,  the  rates  were  I2.30, 
$2.01,  I4.S3  and  $2.91  for  the  years  named.  The  rates  of  wages  a  day,  succcessively 
for  the  years  named,  for  blasters  and  drillers  in  the  New  Jersey  ore  districts,  were  75 
cents,  |i,  f  1.65  and  Jti.50  ;  and  for  unskilled  laborers  in  mining  ore  at  Cornwall,  Pa., 
50  cents,  75  cents,  I1.45  and  f  i.55- 

But  this  is  a  question  which  concerns  free  traders  the  least  of  all. 
It  matters  not  how  low  wages  are  or  how  large  the  body  of  unemployed 
becomes,  so  long  as  the  physical  strength  of  the  operatives  is  not  injured, 
or  the  peace  and  order  of  the  community  interfered  with.  The  free  trade 
economists,  in  their  cold-blooded  and  merciless  treatment  of  economic 
subjects,  define  the  vast  body  of  unemployed  as  a  "residuum,"  which, 
adds  to  the  competitive  power  of  the  nation,  by  supplying  the  manufac- 
turers with  a  large  body  of  artisans  to  draw  from  in  time  of  a  revival  of 
business,  who  under  those  circumstances  are  ready  to  work  for  a  mere 
pittance.  This  "residuum"  is  regarded  from  an  economic  point  of  view, 
as  a  national  benefit,  because  it  tends  to  prevent  an  increase  in  wages,  and 
carries  out  the  original  purpose  of  Cobden  and  his  associates,  who  .so 
shaped  the  policy  of  the  nation  as  to  create  an  abundance  of  laborers  in 
order  that  artisans  might  at  all  times  be  found  at  wages  which  would 
insure  that  "cheapness"  of  production  through  which  a  monopoly  of 
markets  was  to  be  secured. 

The  vast  body  of  unemployed  cannot  be  ascertained  from  the  official 
reports  of  the  government.  Each  month  the  Board  of  Trade  Journal  con- 
tains in  its  columns  of  labor  reports  a  statement  of  the  percentage  of 
unemployed  in  various  trades.  This  is  based  upon  the  monthly  returns 
of  certain  labor  unions,  having  about  800,000  members.  ■  It  has  no  refer- 
ence, whatever,  to  the  vast  army  of  laborers  outside  of  these  organiza- 
tions, so  when  it  is  reported  and  currently  circulated  by  free  trade 
newspapers  that  the  unemployed  amounted  to  10  or  12  per  cent  in  a  par- 
ticular month  it  should  be  understood  that  such  statements  have  reference 
only  to  a  very  small  part  of  the  artisans  of  the  country. 

The  cru.shing  weight  of  free  trade  has  fallen  most  heavily  upon  the 
wage-earner.  The  reductions  in  wages  which  have  taken  place  in  Eng- 
land, when  we  consider  the  large  amount  taken  from  the  spendable 
incomes  of  the  vast  laboring  population,  may  be  better  appreciated  by  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Frederick  T.  Haggard,  who  shows  that  a  loss  of  only 
I.S-.  per  week  from  13,000,000  working  men  in  the  TJnited  Kingdom 
amounts  to  $3,250,000  per  week,  or  $169,000,000  in  a  year.  He  also 
shows  that  the  laborers  of  Great  Britain  and  their  families,  represent  two- 
thirds  of  the  population,  or  24,000,000  souls.  Knocking  off  \d.  per  four- 
pound  loaf,  allowing  156  four-pound  loaves  to  each  of  them,  they  would 
consume  3,744,000,000  loaves  in  a  year.     The  saving  of   \d.   per  loaf 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


would  amount  to  $78,000,000,  leaving  a  loss  of  $91,000,000  by  the  reduc- 
tion of  i^.  per  week  in  wages.  ' 

The  above  estimate  was  made  by  Mr.  Haggard  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  cost  of  bread  was  such  a  small  item,  that  the  working 
clasises  of  England  would  profit  under  a  system  of  protection,  although  it 
slightly  enhanced  the  price  of  food.  The  increased  employment,  as  well 
as  increased  wages  which  it  would  bring,  would  so  overbalance  a  rise  in 
price  of  bread  that  in  the  end  they  would  profit  by  the  change  in  policy. 
The  evidence  before  the  Ro3^al  Commission,  together  with  the  answers 
above  given,  shows  a  reduction  in  wages  since  1S76  of  much  more  than 
a  shilling  a  week.  It  would  be  difficult  to  estimate  the  lo.ss  which  the 
laborers  of  England  have  sustained  annually  by  the  system  of  free  com- 
petition which  they  have  practiced. 

The  effect  of  the  consumption  of  a  vast  quantity  of  competing  com- 
modities is  to  diminish  the  demand  for  labor.  The  over-supply  of  labor- 
ers thus  brought  about,  keeps  the  wage  rate  down  to  a  minimum.  The 
large  emigration  which  has  taken  place  has  not  been  sufficient  to  relieve 
the  market  from  the  glut  which  is  occasioned  bj'  the  imports.  Even  if  a 
protective  policy,  which  resulted  in  shutting  out  such  imports,  should  only 
furnish  full  employment  to  Briti.sh  labor,  at  a  low  w-age  rate  it  would  be 
better  than  the  lack  of  employment  which  now  prevails.  The  free  trader 
is  accustomed  to  argue  that  an  increa.se  in  wages  would  result  in  so 
enhancing  the  co.st  of  producing  commodities,  that  it  would  prevent  their 
sales  in  neutral  markets,  in  competition  with  the  lower  paid  wage  earners 
of  the  Continent,  and  make  it  more  difficult  to  invade  protected  markets. 
If  it  -should  be  conceded  that  this  is  true,  that  a  nation  which  depends 
upon  foreign  markets  for  the  sale  of  a  vast  surplus  of  commodities,  must 
necessarily  make  them  cheaper  in  order  to  continue  in  the  sharp  competi- 
tion that  is  now  carried  on,  the  fact  still  remains  that  full  employment  at  low 
wages  is  better  than  no  employment  at  all.  The  most  severe  injury  which 
the  policy  of  free  trade  has  inflicted  on  the  English  people,  is  found  in 
the  ruin  of  productive  industries  and  in  the  displacement  of  thou.sands 
of  laborers.  The  more  we  investigate  the  precise  effects  of  free  im- 
ports on  English  producers,  the  more  apparent  becomes  the  importance 
to  nations  of  home  industries.  So  far  as  the  making  of  the  $280,000,000 
of  fully  manufactured,  and  the  $150,000,000  of  partly  manufactured, 
imported  goods  in  England  is  concerned,  a  small  protective  duty  would 
insure  the  investment  of  capital  and  the  employment  of  British  labor  in 
their  production  in  England.  The  increased  employment  which  such 
change  would  give  to  labor,  would  so  increase  the  spendable  income  of 
the  people  that  the  home  market  would  become  far  more  valuable  to  all 
industries.  There  is  no  excuse  for  permitting  the  well-to-do  people  of 
England    to  use  the   interest  on  their  foreign   investments    and   fixed 

'  Fair  Trade  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  127. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


incomes,  in  .the  purchase  of  silks  on  the  Continent,  when  the  English  silk 
weavers  and  spinners  are  living  in  idleness  and  in  workhouses.  The 
purchase  of  glass  from  the  Continent  deprives  the  coal  miners  of  England, 
as  well  as  the  glassmakers,  of  work.  So  we  might  trace  the  effect  of 
every  finished  article  that  is  brought  into  the  country.  While  a  policy 
which  would  revive  the  agricultural  interest  of  the  country  by  compelling 
the  growth  at  home  of  $600,000,000  of  agricultural  products  imported, 
ght  enhance  the  price  of  bread,  yet  the  whole  nation  would  be  com- 
pensated, and  especially  the  30,000,000  of  working  people,  in  the  improve- 
ment and  increase  of  the  purchasing  power  of  the  agricultural  population. 
Not  onlj'  the  country  merchants,  masons,  carpenters,  bricklayers,  farm 
laborers,  but  in  fact,  every  department  of  industry  in  the  United  King- 
dom would  be  restored  to  a  flourishing  condition. 

If  it  be  true,  that  through  the  use  of  machinery  the  productive 
capacity  of  man  has  so  increased  that  a  .smaller  proportion  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  world  is  able  to  produce  such  a  quantity  of  manufactured 
articles  as  to  bring  about  a  chronic  glut  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  as  a 
means  of  subsistence  and  employment  to  the  masses,  agriculture  is  made 
more  important.  That  the  great  producing  countries  of  the  world  are 
suffering  from  over-production,  there  is  not  the  slightest  question ;  not 
that  more  is  produced  than  the  world  needs,  but  that  more  is  being  pro- 
duced than  consumers  are  able  to  buy.  That  being  true,  employment 
which  increases  the  incomes  and  enables  the  consumers  of  the  world  to 
purchase  a  larger  quantity  of  consumable  commodities  i^vould  relieve  the 
situation. 

After  all,  even  in  England  the  home  market  is  found  to  be  worth 
preserving.  Those  nations  which  have  been  most  prosperous  and  which 
have  enjoyed  the  greatest  degree  of  prosperity,  who.se  people  have  been 
most  fully  employed,  and  whose  industries  are  most  vigorous  and  inde- 
pendent, have  adhered  to  that  national  system  of  protection  to  which 
England  is  indebted  for  that  long  period  of  prosperity  and  industrial 
development  which  terminated  when  the  people  yielded  to  the  economic 
delusions  of  Cobden  and  his  associates. 

The  policy  of  free  trade  is  so  riveted  upon  the  country  that  manufac- 
turers, ship-owners,  tradesmen  and  bankers  have,  during  a  period  of  forty 
years,  been  gradually  forced  into  channels  which  are  antagonistic  to  the 
masses  of  English  people.  A  return  to  protection  would  require  such  a 
readjustment  of  the  industrial  life  of  the  nation  that  it  could  not  be  brought 
about  without  great  opposition  from  influential  and  strong  classes.  While 
a  .sy.stem  of  protection  to  agriculture  would  relieve  the  urban  population  of 
a  vast  surplus  of  laborers  and  restore  the  soil  of  the  realm  to  a  high  state 
of  cultivation,  increase  the  value  of  land  and  make  the  rural  population 
prosperous  and  flourishing,  it  would  deprive  the  ship-owners  and  trades- 
men of  the   freight  and  profit  which   they  derive  from  the  carriage  of 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  I^AILUBE. 

$600,000,000  of  farm  products.  Although  the  system  of  free  imports  has 
weakened  and  practically  destroyed  the  influence  of  the  agriculturists,  it 
has  aided  in  building  up  the  shipping  interest  of  the  country  and  made 
it  powerful  and  influential.  This  vast  interest  which  has  been  so  improved 
under  free  trade  has  been  a  source  of  great  profit  to  the  few  capitalists, 
although  it  has  given  employment  to  only  a  small  number  of  laborers. 
The  system  of  free  imports  has  reduced  the  rural  population  from  20  per 
cent  to  5  per  cent.  Of  those  over  ten  years  of  age  of  this  population,  73 
per  cent  are  common  laborers  and  belong  to  the  pauper  or  semi-pauper  class. 
So  it  appears  that  this  interest  which  to-day  would  come  forward  and  advo- 
cate a  restoration  of  protection  to  agriculture,  is  insignificant  in  numbers 
and  lacking  in  influence.  When  the  question  of  protection  to  agriculture 
comes  up,  the  free  trader  proclaims  that  it  means  an  increase  in  the  price 
of  bread.  This  argument  for  a  long  time  was  effectual  with  the  laboring 
masses.  It  still  appeals  strongly  to  those  who  live  on  foreign  investments 
and  fixed  incomes,  but  it  has  less  weight  than  formerly  with  the  com- 
mercial and  manufacturing  classes.  The  excessive  imports  of  fully  and 
partly  manufactured  articles  are  having  a  ruinous  effect  upon  the  manu- 
facturing interests  of  the  nation.  Although  the  efforts  to  reduce 
wages  which  have  been  made  by  the  employers,  have  been  partly  suc- 
cessful, sufficient  reductions  have  not  been  made  to  admit  of  such  profits 
to  capital  as  are  necessary  to  a  vigorous  and  healthy  industrial  life. 
Prices  have  been  so  lowered  by  the  competition  which  has  been  forced 
upon  them,  both  at  home  and  in  neutral  markets,  that  profits  have  been 
reduced  to  a  minimum  and  in  many  instances  completely  wiped  out,  the 
concerns  having  gone  out  of  business  or  removed  their  plants  to  protec- 
tionist countries.  The  labor  organizations  have  persistently  resisted 
reduction  of  wages  which  were  made  necessary  by  such  conditions,  yield- 
ing only  in  those  cases  in  which  their  own  employment  depended  upon 
such  concessions.  The  manufacturers  have  suffered  almost  equally  with 
the  artisans.  Standing  between  the  Continental  producers,  who  are 
flooding  England  and  neutral  markets  with  their  wares,  and  their  own 
powerful  labor  organizations,  they  have  been  in  many  instances  com- 
pelled to  succumb.  Speaking  upon  this  point  the  majority  of  the  Royal 
Commission  stated  in  its  report:  "A  time  may,  therefore,  come  when 
capital  will  lose  all  induceme7it  to  lend  itself  to  the  work  of  prodtiction  ;  and 
if  the  employer  is  driven  out  of  the  field,  the  laborer  will  ?iecessarily  sjiffer 
with  him."  ' 

This  state  of  things  is  doing  more  to  undermine  the  free  trade  senti- 
ment and  to  convert  the  manufacturers  and  artisans  to  the  cause  of  pro- 
tection than  anything  else  that  has  occurred  since  1846.  The  change  of 
opinion  in  favor  of  protection  which  is  taking  place  in  England  among 
business  men  and  manufacturers,  was  disclosed  by  a  canvass  made  in 

depression  of  Trade  and  Industry,  Final  Report,  Paragraph  S3. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

Februar>',  1889,  of  the  members  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  city 
of  Manchester.  It  showed  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  protectionists 
or  fair  traders,  and  three  hundred  and  ninety-seven  free  traders.  The 
following  classification  of  such  canvass  was  published  in  the  Fair  Trade 
Journal : ' 

Merchants,  Shippers,  Agents  and  Bankers. 

Fair  Trade  Free  Trade. 

Merchants, 22  37 

Shippers, 21  io6 

Agents, 25  61 

Bankers, i  6 

69  210 

Manufacturers,  Cai,ico  Printers  and  Bleachers. 

Fair  Trade.  Free  Trade. 

Cotton 33  74 

Woolen 2  3 

Flax,      I 

Iron,          4  5 

Chemical, 9  5 

Paper, 5  I 

Corn   Millers, 2 

Miscellaneous, .    .  8  5 

Bleachers 10  3 

Calico  Printers 5  U 

79  no 

Miscellaneous. 

Fair  Trade.  Free  Trade. 

Provision  Merchants 6  i 

Accountants,  Solicitors,  etc 6  20 

Described  as  gentlemen 9  21 

Not  traceable 18  35 

39  77 

Total 1.S7  397 

During  the  past  fifteen  years  the  Cobden  Club  has  been  compelled 
to  flood  England  with  pamphlets  and  literature  to  meet  the  attack 
which  protectionists  are  making  upon  the  policy.  The  time  may  come, 
and  in  all  probability  will  come  within  a  few  years,  when  the  English 
people  will  learn  wisdom  by  experience  and  return  to  that  economic  policy 
which  through  so  many  centuries  was  upheld  by  her  most  renowned 
statesmen.  It  is  believed  by  many  that  an  open  revolt  against  the  ruin- 
ous policy  of  free  trade  would  have  occurred  before  this,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  encouragement   which  they  received  from  their  friends   in   the 

'  Vol.  IV.,  February  22,  1889,  p.  280. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


United  States,  that  the  best  market  in  the  world  would  be  thrown  open 
to  them  by  the  adoption  of  free  trade  under  the  leadership  of  President 
Cleveland.  Should  the  United  States,  in  the  election  of  1896,  return  to  a 
vigorous  polic)'  of  protection,  English  manufacturers  will  be  likely  to 
lose  all  hope  of  witnessing  a  case  of  commercial  suicide  on  the  part  of  the 
American  people,  and  settle  down  to  the  idea  that  they  cannot  rely  on 
the  imbecility  and  folly  of  other  nations  to  supply  them  with  markets, 
but  that  they  must  do  as  other  nations  are  doing,  foster  and  encourage 
their  own  varied  resources  at  home,  and  rely  on  their  internal  prosperity 
as  the  chief  source  of  their  wealth.  It  must  be  that  they  will  ultimately 
learn  a  lesson  by  studying  their  own  deplorable  condition.  Their  utter- 
ances before  the  Royal  Commission  which  have  been  cited,  show  clearly 
that  they  now  begin  to  realize  the  importance  of  their  home  markets. 
With  machinery  idle  a  portion  of  the  time,  with  Continental  countries 
and  the  United  States,  to  a  great  extent,  closed  to  their  wares  by  a  sys- 
tem of  protection,  with  their  own  colonies  and  possessions.  South  America 
and  Asia,  entering  upon  a  .sy.stem  of  domestic  productions,  with  neutral 
markets  so  invaded  by  Continental  rivals  that  sales  are  made  in  many 
instances  at  a  loss,  and  in  all  instances  at  a  small  margin  of  profit,  they 
are  confronted  by  a  most  serious  situation.  With  this  condition  perma- 
nently fixed,  they  begin  now  to  prize  their  own  home  trade,  to  realize 
the  loss  which  they  have  sustained  in  destroying  a  wealthy  and  comfort- 
able rural  population,  which  was  a  large  purchaser  of  their  wares  and  in 
converting  the  soil  of  the  United  Kingdom  into  a  territory  worked  by  a 
few  land-owners  and  cultivated  by  paupers.  The  small  country  merchants 
and  the  mechanics  who  lived  in  comfort  throughout  the  rural  districts 
have  had  their  incomes  so  reduced  that  they  have  become  very  poor  cus- 
tomers. Turning  then  to  the  laboring  population,  to  the  30,000,000 
people  who  should  form  a  great  body  of  consumers,  they  find  a  degree  of 
idleness  through  lack  of  employment,  which  is  mo,st  appalling.  Incomes 
and  earnings,  even  among  the  most  skilled  artisans  and  those  most 
steadily  employed  are  only  sufficient  to  provide  them  with  cheap  clothing 
and  scanty  food. 

The  consuming  power  of  this  vast  body  of  citizens  has  been  forced 
down  to  such  a  low  degree  that  their  home  market  is  year  by  year  grow- 
ing less  valuable.  To  regain  that  which  is  lost,  to  restore  to  their  own 
people  that  wage  scale,  amount  of  spendable  income,  and  degree  of  com- 
fort and  happiness  which  a  protective  policy  would  bring,  would  require 
long  years  of  transformation.  An  increase  in  wages  would  so  increase 
the  cost  of  production  that  a  large  portion  of  their  foreign  trade  would 
be  surrendered,  because  any  nation  which  relies  on  foreign  trade  must 
sell  its  commodities  in  competition  with  other  nations,  and  at  a  price 
which  conforms  to  the  cost  of  production  in  the  lowest  competing  nation. 
Mr.  Dunckley  recognized  this  principle  when  he  stated  that  "the  work- 
24 


Necessity 
of  a  change 
of  policy. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

man,  instead  of  parting  tvith  his  labor  in  almost  direct  exchange  for  food, 
has  to  sell  it,  through  several  ha7ids  in  distant  markets,  and  his  ability  to 
supply  his  wa7its  depends  really  upon  the  cvillingness  of  the  foreigner  to 
employ  him.''  ' 

The  principle  announced  touches  the  very  kernel  of  the  wage  question 
under  free  competition.  As  long  as  the  English  people  were  provided 
with  superior  machinery;  as  long  as  their  citizens  possessed  superior 
skill;  as  long  as  manufacturers  were  able  to  command  more  abundant 
capital;  as  long  as  they  possessed  advantages  over  all  other  nations  in 
cheap  production :  as  long  as  they  held  a  substantial  monopoly :  as  long 
as  they  were  able  to  supplant  and  destroy  rivals,  control  and  hold  markets, 
everything  went  well.  But  the  last  forty  years  has  been  the  most 
progressive  age  in  all  industrial  pursuits,  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
Under  a  system  of  protection.  Continental  countries  have  built  up  all 
branches  of  rival  industries;  have  provided  themselves  with  the  most 
efficient  machinery;  have  adopted  all  modern  improvements  and  best 
appliances,  and  with  an  abundance  of  capital;  and  with  a  dense-  popula- 
tion of  apt,  industrious  and  ingenious  people,  educated  to  the  use  of 
machinery  and  modern  scientific  and  technical  methods,  an  industrial 
revolution  has  been  brought  about,  which  has  entirely  changed  the  con- 
ditions under  which  England  entered  upon  her  ix)licy  of  free  trade.  The 
time  is  past  when  any  one  nation  can  hold  a  monopoly  of  ary  particular 
branch  of  production.  As  Sir  Edward  Sullivan  has  so  well  pointed  out, 
there  is  scarcely  a  commodity  which  can  be  produced  as  cheaply  in  Eng- 
land as  it  could  be  in  some  other  part  of  the  globe.  If  England  contin- 
ues her  free  trade  policy,  and  is  reduced  simply  to  the  production  of  those 
articles  which  can  be  produced  cheaper  in  England  than  in  any  other 
place,  nothing  but  an  exodus  of  a  vast  portion  of  her  population  will 
relieve  the  people  from  a  degree  of  misery  and  destitution  unknown  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  A  return  to  protection  is  absolutely  essential 
to  a  restoration  of  prosperity,  and  to  save  the  producers  of  the  country 
from  the  ultimate  extinction  of  their  industries.  As  the  productive  power 
of  other  nations  increases,  a  larger  surplus  will  each  year  be  accumulated 
to  dump  on  the  market  of  any  nation  which  by  a  system  of  free  imports 
makes  itself  the  "rubbish  heap  of  the  world." 

Sir  Edward  vSullivan  writes  as  follows: 

Do  free  traders  really  suppose  that  when  the  country  comes  to  its  senses  it  will 
persevere  in  the  road  to  ruin,  merely  to  save  their  apostles  from  the  mortification  of 
being  posted  as  economic  charUitans? 

Thirty-five  years  ago  the  soi-disant  free  traders  set  themselves  to  the  work— 
"  God's  work"  they  called  it— of  destroying  the  landowner.  Well,  they  have  nearly 
succeeded,  but  in  doing  so  they  have  destroyed  the  tenants,  and  the  shop-keepers,  and 
tradesmen,  and  carriers,  and  the  hundred  and  one  small  industries  in  every  agricul- 
tural town  and  village  throughout  the  country;  and  their  clients,  the  manufacturers 
'  Charter  of  tlic  Nations,  p.  13. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


(who  supported  them),  now  find  to  their  dismay  that  their  efforts  have  destroyed  tlie 
purchasing  power  of  eight  or  nine  millions  of  their  best  customers.  "  See,"  said  the 
Radical  engineers  of  Manchester,  and  Birmingham,  and  Bradford,  thirty-five  years 
ago,  "  how  we  will  blow  up  the  landowners."  And  lo  !  they  are  hoist  with  their  own 
petard. 

In  considering  the  arguments  (if  they  are  worthy  to  be  so  called)  I  have  advanced 
in  favor  of  a  return  to  protective  duties,  two  questions   naturally  suggest  themselves 

( 1 )  Is  it  probable  or  even  possible  that  England  can  return  to  protection  ? 

(2)  If  she  did  so,  would  the  working  classes  be  benefited  by  it? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  must  be  sought  in  a  careful  analysis  of  the  census 
It  appears  probable  that  the  operative  classes,  as  a  body,  will  go  for  "  protection  to 
land  and  labor;  "  if  they  do  so,  the  manufacturers,  the  landowners,  the  tenant- 
farmers,  the  laborers,  every  tradesman  and  shop-keeper  in  the  manufacturing  and 
agricultural  towns  and  villages  throughout  the  country,  the  brewers,  the  publicans, 
the  carriers,  and  all  the  small  industries,  directly  or  indirectly  dependent  on  the 
prosperity  and  spending  power  of  the  operative  and  agricultural  classes,  will  follow 
them  to  a  man. 

The  country  bankers,  private  and  joint  stock,  will  go  for  protection,  because  they 
hope  and  believe  it  will  lead  to  a  return  of  prosperity  to  land  and  labor;  and  in  that 
prosperity  lies  their  only  chance  of  recovering  the  millions  they  liave  advanced  to 
manufacturers,  and  landowners,  and  tenants,  and  tradesmen.  The  opposition  will  come 
from  the  importers  of  foreign  goods  ;  the  large  wholesale  houses  who  make  more  profit 
by  selling  foreign  manufactured  goods  than  English  manufactured  goods,  the  world 
of  fashion  who  think  life  impossible  without  foreign  articles  de  luxe  ;  but  above  all,  it 
will  come  from  the  political  craftsmen,  who,  for  the  space  of  thirty  years,  have  been 
crying  "  Great  is  free  trade,"  exactly  for  the  same  reason  that  Demetrius  and  his 
fellow  craftsmen  of  Ephesus  cried  "Great  is  Diana,"  because  they  believe  it  has 
given  them  profit  and  popularity.  But  there  is  another  and  very  powerful  class  who 
denounce  the  idea  of  a  return  to  protection  as  ignorant  nonsense;  the  promoters  of 
companies,  of  foreign  mines,  and  loans,  and  enterprises  of  all  sorts;  the  stock-brokers, 
the  London  bankers,  and  the  great  finance  houses  whose  profits  depend  on  the  trade 
of  the  world;  on  the  industrial  prosperity  of  France  and  America  as  much  as,  if  not 
more  than,  on  the  industrial  prosperity  of  England.  They  have  never  been  so  well 
off,  because  there  never  has  been  .so  nmch  money  at  their  disposal;  the  prostration 
of  agricultural  and  manufacturing  industries  has  liberated  a  great  deal  of  money; 
everywhere  where  it  is  possible,  money  is  being  withdrawn  from  land,  either  to  hold 
or  to  cultivate,  and  from  manufacturing  industries,  for  investment  in  stocks  and 
shares,  and  more  or  less  risky  foreign  enterprises. 

Secondly,  supposing  England  does  return  to  protection,  will  the  working  classes 
be  benefited  by  it  ?  Will  foreign  nations  buy  more  of  our  goods  because  we  put  a  duty 
on  their  goods  ?  Certainly  not.  They  will  continue  to  buy  from  us  just  what  they 
do  now,  neither  more  nor  less,  what  they  cannot  make  themselves,  and  what  they 
cannot  buy  better  elsewhere.  But  on  the  other  hand  we  should  buy  ^'40,000,000  or 
/50, 000,000  less  of  their  goods,  and  consume  /■40, 000,000  or  ^50,000,000  more  of  our 
own  goods;  and  ^20,000,000  or  /■25, 000,000  of  wages  that  now  go  into  the  pockets  of 
foreign  operatives  would  go  into  the  pockets  of  English  operatives.  Would  a  five-shil- 
ling duty  on  corn  benefit  the  working  classes?  If  it  merely  raised  the  price  of  the 
quartern  loaf  a  half-penny  and  did  nothing  else,  it  is  evident  it  would  not ;  but  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  caused  capital  to  flow  into  agricultural  industries,  if  it  trebled  our 
production  of  home  food,  if  it  caused  /6o,ooo,ooo  that  now  go  abroad  to  buy  foreign 
food  to  be  spent  in  cultivating  home-grown  food,  if  it  increased  the  income  of  the 
agricultural  classes  ^20,000,000,  I  think  there  is  little  doubt  it  would  benefit  them.  I 
believe    fully    that    if    confidence   could    be    restored    to    our    manufacturing   and 


Benefits 
that  would 
H  from 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


agricultural  industries,  if  land  and  labor  were  protected  from  "unwise  and  unjust  legis- 
lation," we  should  soon  produce  ^50,000,000  or  /."6o,ooo,ooo  worth  more  food,  and 
^50,000,000  or  /60, 000,000  worth  more  manufactured  goods,  and  that  our  manufactur- 
ing and  agricultural  classes  would  earn  $50,000,000  or  ^"60,000,000  worth  more  wages 
and  income.  My  confidence,  therefore,  is  most  absolute  that  when  the  nation  realizes 
its  true  industrial  position,  and  common  sense  has  removed  the  question  from  the 
arena  of  party  politics,  the  demand  throughout  the  country  from  almost  every  class  for 
a  return  to  protection  will  be  irresistible.' 

A  review  of  the  commercial  polic}'  of  Great  Britain  would  pot  be 
complete  without  a  .special  reference  to  the  injuries  which  were  inflicted 
on  the  trade  and  commerce  of  Ireland  during  the  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries,  and  the  effect  of  the  polic}-  of  free  trade  on  manufactur- 
ing and  agriculture,  since  its  union  with  England.  The  antagonisms, 
which  have  existed  between  the  two  countries  through  .so  many  centuries, 
have  not  been  confined  wholly  to  questions  affecting  religious  and  politi- 
cal rights.  The  energj'  and  enterprise  which  manifested  itself  in  the  Irish 
people  soon  aroused  the  jealousy  of  the  commercial  classes  of  Great 
Britain.  As  early  as  the  seventeenth  century  they  engaged  in  manufac- 
turing, making  cotton,  woolen  and  other  fabrics,  built  ships  and  were 
increasing  their  foreign  trade.  In  order  to  obstruct  and  re.strict  their 
commercial  enterprises,  to  prevent  them  from  sharing  foreign  markets, 
laws  were  enacted  in  1665  and  1680,  which  prohibited  the  Irish  people 
from  exporting  cattle,  sheep,  swine,  beef,  pork  and  mutton.  Through 
this  legislation,  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  their  pro-sperity  was  utterly 
annihilated.  In  1696,  by  navigation  laws,  the  carrying  trade  was  con- 
fined to  British  ships,  which  drove  nearly  every  Irish  sailing  vessel  from 
the  sea.  In  1669  the  export  of  manufactured  articles  was  prohibited. 
This  closed  woolen  mills,  threw  out  of  employment  30,000  people  and 
reduced  12,000  families  to  a  state  of  destitution.  "So  ended,"  says 
L,ecky,  "the  fairest  promise  Ireland  ever  had  of  becoming  a  happy  and 
prosperous  country."  It  would  not  be  within  the  province  of  this  work 
to  trace  the  hi.story  of  those  events  which  led  to  the  independence  of  the 
Irish  people,  which  was  achieved  in  1782,  under  the  leadership  of  Henry 
Grattan  and  others.  During  the  short  period  of  self-government  which 
followed,  the  development  of  industries  was  stimulated  and  fostered  by  a 
system  of  protective  legislation.  The  prospects  and  hopes  of  this  unfor- 
tunate people  were  again  blasted  when,  in  the  year  1800,  a  union  was 
effected  with  England,  and  all  local  self-government  taken  away.  The 
commercial  features  of  the  act  of  union  were  of  the  highest  importance. 
Import  duties  on  woolen  goods  and  several  other  articles  were  continued 
for  a  period  of  twenty  years  on  calicoes  and  muslins  until  180S,  reductions 
were  to  be  gradually  made  to  reach  10  per  cent  in  18 16,  and  to  disappear 
in  1 82 1.  Cotton  yarn  and  cotton  twist  were  similarly  treated.  Protec- 
tion to  the  linen   industry  lasted  until   1826,   when  it  was  withdrawn. 

'  Tlic  Niueteeutli  Century,  August.  i88i,  pp.  6-7. 


f 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  following  brief  summary  of  the  effect  of  such  legislation  was  given 
by  Sir  John  Barnard  Byles: 

In  1800  they  had  in  Ireland  91  master  woolen  manufacturers,  employing  491S 
hands.     In  1840  the  master  manufacturers  were  12,  the  hands,  602. 

Master  wool  combers  in  1800  were  30;  the  hands  230.  In  1834,  masters  5; 
hands  66. 

Carpet  manufacturers  in  1800,  masters  13;  hands  720.  In  1841,  masters  i; 
hands  10. 

Blanket  manufacturers  in  Kilkenny  in  1800,  masters  56;  hands  3000.  In 
1822,  masters  42;  hands  925. 

Flannel  looms  in  the  County  of  Wicklow  in  1800,  1000;  in  1841,  not  one. 

In  the  city  of  Cork: 

:8oo.  1834. 

Braid  weavers,      1000  40 

Worsted  weavers, 2000  90 

Hosiers 300  28 

Wool  combers, 700  1 10 

Cotton  weavers, 2000  210 

Linen  check  weavers, 600  None. 

Cotton  spinners,  bleachers,  calico  printers — thousands  employed,  utterly  extinct. 

The  linen  trade,  protected  and  fostered  until  1826,  was  not  in  those  days  confined 
to  the  North  of  Ireland.  In  Clonakilty,  in  the  County  of  Cork,  ^1200  a  week  was 
expended  on  the  purchase  of  coarse  linen  webs  so  late  as  1825.  In  Mayo,  ^iij,ooo 
was  expended  in  purchasing  the  same  species  of  web.  In  1825  the  sum  of  two  mill- 
ions and  a  half  sterling  was  expended  in  Ireland  in  the  purchase  of  coarse, 
unbleached,  homemade  webs.' 

The  small  establishments  of  Ireland,  unable  to  withstand  the  exces- 
sive competition  of  those  powerful  British  masters,  were  closed,  and 
agriculture  again  became  practically  the  sole  occupation  of  the  people. 
This  was  urged  by  Englishmen  to  be  a  change  which  would  result  in 
great  benefits  to  the  Irish,  as  they  could  buy  their  clothing,  imple- 
ments, etc.,  much  cheaper  than  they  could  be  made  at  home,  and  a  trade 
profitable  to  both  countries  could  be  carried  on  by  exchanging  Irish  farm 
produce  for  British  manufactures.  But  scarcely  had  the  Irish  people 
settled  down  exclusively  to  rural  pursuits  when,  in  1846,  the  repeal  of  the 
Corn  Ivaws  inflicted  a  more  severe  injury  upon  the  country  than  it  had 
sustained  through  the  loss  of  the  manufactures.  It  threw  the  ports  of 
Ireland  open  to  the  free  admission  of  the  farm  products  of  all  countries, 
and  brought  them  into  direct  competition  with  the  wheat  growers  of  the 
fertile  regions  of  America.  At  the  time  of  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws, 
and  during  the  few  years  preceding  that  event,  what  the  English  people 
lacked  they  were  buying  largely  in  Ireland.  British  imports  of  grain 
from  this  source  in  1845  amounted  to  3,225,000  quarters.  To  this  were 
added  cattle,  sheep,  swine,  etc.,  which  swelled  the  total  purchases  from 

'  Sophisms  of  Free  Trade,  p.  151 . 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


Ireland  to  /.'ly, 000,000  sterling.  This  market  for  Irish  produce  was  not 
only  destroyed  by  the  adoption  of  free  trade,  but  the  Irish  people  them- 
selves became  importers  of  those  bread  stuffs  which  hitherto  had  been 
produced  at  home.  Althoirgh  the  economic  condition  of  the  peasant  was 
deplorable  on  account  of  the  evils  of  the  land  system,  the  farming  interests 
of  the  country  had  kept  pace  with  the  constantly  increasing  population, 
which  rose  from  5,216,000  in  1801,  to  8,175,000  in  1841.  Since  the 
adoption  of  free  trade  their  manufactures  have  been  ruined,  and  com- 
peting agricultural  imports  have  so  increased  that  at  the  present  time, 
the  Irish  people  are  annually  buying  from  other  countries  33,000,000 
bushels  of  grain  to  feed  a  population  which,  as  appears  by  the  cen.sus  of 
iSgi,  is  reduced  to  4,704,000  persons.  Although  a  system  of  tyranny 
which  has  denied  to  the  Irish  people  the  right  of  self-government  and 
kept  the  agricultural  population  in  a  condition  of  poverty  and  degrada- 
tion, has  driven  many  into  exile,  yet  free  trade  has  largely, contributed 
to  the  destitution  and  misery  of  the  people  and  to  that  excessive  emigra- 
tion which  has  occurred.  If  the  British  Government  had  set  about  de- 
signedly to  destroy  a  political  rival,  it  could  have  adopted  no  surer  means 
of  accomplishing  such  an  end,  than  the  commercial  policy  to  which  it  has 
compelled  the  Iri.sh  people  to  submit  since  the  union  was  effected. 

Officers  of  the  Cobden  Club  in  their  efforts  to  defend  a  commer- 
cial policy  which  is  being  condemned  by  the  practical  test  to  which 
it  is  subjected  in  England,  resort  to  many  ingenious  and  deceptive 
arguments  to  prove  that  the  condition  of  the  English  people  has  improved 
under  its  influences.  They  cite  the  fact  that  in  recent  years  fewer  crimes 
have  been  committed  than  during  the  early  part  of  the  century.  The 
influences  of  the  Christian  religion,  of  national  education  and  other  mor- 
alizing and  civilizing  agencies  which  have  contributed  to  the  moral  and 
intellectual  growth  of  the  English  people,  are  entirely  ignored,  and  the 
one  fact  of  the  decrease  in  the  number  of  convictions  for  criminal  oft'ences 
is  held  up  as  one  of  the  fruits  of  a  barbarous  and  degrading  commercial 
policy.  Such  arguments  would  not  be  worthy  of  notice,  did  they  not 
find  a  place  in  the  literature  which  is  yearly  .sent  broadcast  throughout 
the  world. 

Again,  the  increase  in  the  incomes  of  the  English  people  as  disclosed 
by  the  income  tax  returns,  is' pointed  to  as  an  evidence  of  prosperity. 
This  point  has  already  been  considered.  It  has  been  shown  that  such 
increase  is  due,  in  part,  to  improved  administration  in  the  collection  of 
taxes,  yet  independent  of  this  fact,  the  incomes  embraced  within  the 
returns  con.stitute  the  earnings  of  only  a  small  part  of  the  population  of 
the  country,  and  furnish  no  proof  of  the  condition  of  over  30,000,000  of 
the  population,  constituting  that  portion  most  injuriously  affected  by  the 
system  of  free  competition. 

Another  argument  which  is  frequently  advanced  and  which  standing 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


alone  and  unexplained  is  quite  apt  to  mislead  those  who  are  unacquainted 
with  the  subject,  is  the  claim  that  pauperism  has  decreased. 

As  pauperism  increases,  the  advocates  of  Cobdenism  instead  of  admit- 
ting the  chief  cause  of  the  evil  and  favoring  remedies  under  which  it 
might  be  abated,  seek  to  justify  the  terrible  results  of  free  trade,  by  pre- 
senting statistics  to  show  that  it  is  not  so  bad  as  in  former  times.  The 
alleged  decrease  in  pauperism  is  put  forth  to  prove  that  the  masses  are 
better  off  under  free  trade  than  they  were  under  protection.  The  num- 
ber receiving  relief,  as  shown  by  the  parish  records  in  1833,  is  compared 
with  that  given  in  the  Board  of  Trade  returns  of  the  present  time.  The 
public  expenditures  for  poor  relief  in  the  former  year  are  set  down 
again.st  the  sum  devoted  to  such  purposes  in  1890,  or  in  recent  years  as 
disclcsed  by  the  official  records.  That  such  comparisons  are  unfair,  and 
prove  absolutely  nothing,  is  well  understood  in  England.  They  can 
deceive  only  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  historj-  of  the  Poor 
Laws  of  the  country.  The  system  of  poor  relief  in  operation  prior  to 
1834,  when  contrasted  with  the  laws  and  policy  since  that  date  expo.ses 
the  deception  which  is  practiced  with  some  degree  of  success  by  tho.se 
who  are  compelled  to  resort  to  all  manner  of  arguments  in  their  efforts  to 
uphold  a  most  vicious  economic  policy. 

Prior  to  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  poor  of  the  realm  were  the  special 
care  of  the  Church.  In  1536,  Henry  VIII.  provided  that  every  parish 
should  collect  alms  for  the  helpless  poor  and  empowered  local  officers  to 
compel  the  able-bodied  poor  to  work  for  a  living.  By  43d  Elizabeth, 
Chap.  II,  the  Poor  Laws  were  systematized,  amended  and  embodied  in  a 
comprehen.sive  code.  The  preamble  to  this  act  stated  that  it  was  the  object 
of  the  law  "to  .set  the  poor  to  work,  to  relieve  the  lame,  impotent  and 
blind,  and  to  put  their  children  as  apprentices. ' '  By  this  act  the  labor 
te.st  was  applied  and  every  person  able  to  work  was  to  be  denied  relief, 
excepting  on  condition  of  his  being  put  to  work.  Under  James  I., 
"Houses  of  Correction"  were  established,  in  which  the  able-bodied  who 
applied  for  assistance  could  be  employed.  These  houses  of  correction 
later  became  penal  institutions,  and  were  the  forerunner  of  the  "work- 
house." By  act  of  George  I.,  1723,  the  law  was  still  further  amended, 
by  providing  that  all  those  who  applied  for  assistance  should  be  re- 
quired to  enter  the  poor  house,  prohibiting  all  assistance  outside  of 
the  public  institution.  It  appears  that  this  act  was  never  fully  enforced. 
The  act  of  Queen  Elizabeth  remained  in  force  in  its  main  features  until 
1782,  when  by  22d  George  III.,  Chap.  83,  a  law  known  as  Gilbert's  Act 
was  passed  by  parliament,  which  entirely  changed  the  principle  of  the 
labor  test  for  those  able  to  work.  Under  the  new  law  the  guardians  of 
every  parish  were  compelled  to  provide  the  laborers  of  their  parishes  with 
employment  or  assistance.  By  this  and  a  subsequent  act  of  1797,  the 
support  of  the  masses  was  in  effect  made  a  charge  upon  the  land,  and 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


outdoor   relief,   without    work,    became 
invoked.     On  this  subject  Yeats  533-3  : 


legal   right   which    could    be 


Tables  were  made  out,  stating  the  amount  of  wages  which  a  laborer  ought 
to  be  paid,  in  relation  to  the  price  of  bread.  The  minimum  wages  were  put 
down  at  35.  a  week,  increasing  with  the  cost  of  the  loaf  and  with  the  number  of  the 
children  in  the  family.  A  man  with  seven  children,  when  bread  was  3J.  a  peck,  could 
demand,  by  law,  relief  to  the  amount  of  15J.  a  week,  and  when  bread  rose  to  45.  3^., 
to  the  amount  of  20^.  ■^d.  Paupers  secured  in  this  manner  as  much  bread  in  seasons 
of  scarcity  as  in  those  of  abundance,  while  the  thrifty  rate-payers  had  to  deny  them- 
selves many  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  whenever  bread  was  dear,  in  order  to  pay  their 
rates.  If  the  object  had  been  to  boast  of  the  large  sum  spent  upon  paupers  or  to  culti- 
vate the  pauper  community,  as  one  of  the  resources  of  the  kingdom,  success  could  not 
have  been  more  complete.  ' 

It  was  under  this  act  which  remained  in  force  until  1834,  that  the 
number  of  those  applying  for  relief  reached  great  proportions.  Prior  to 
the  passage  of  this  act,  the  number  of  paupers  recorded  was  small,  and 
the  sums  expended  in  this  way  were  comparatively  moderate.  Between 
the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  and  1834,  many  old  and  industrious 
artisans  were  thrown  out  of  employment  by  the  introduction  of  machinery. 
This  change,  together  with  the  large  number  of  soldiers  discharged  at  the 
close  of  the  war,  who  sought  employment  at  a  time  when  thousands  of 
laborers  were  being  displaced,  caused  much  suffering  among  the  laboring 
people  which  could  be  remedied  only  by  the  process  of  readjustment  of 
society  to  the  new  methods  of  production.  But  apart  from  the  foregoing 
considerations  the  law  itself  placed  a  premium  on  idleness  and  offered  an 
inducement  and  encouragement  to  patiperism.  It  is  conceded  by  English 
historians  that  the  increase  in  public  expenditures  and  in  the  number  of 
paupers  was  brought  about  more  by  the  vicious  features  of  the  law  and 
the  corruptions  in  its  administration  than  by  inability  to  find  employ- 
ment. 

The  question  was  finally  considered  under  Lord  Grey's  government 
in  1834,  when  a  parliamentary  commission  was  appointed  to  investigate 
the  whole  subject  of  the  Poor  Law  administration.  The  commission  was 
composed  of  Dr.  Bloomfield,  of  London;  Dr.  Sumner,  Bishop  of  Chester, 
and  afterward  Archbishop  of  Canterbury ;  Mr.  Sturges  Bourne,  Mr.  Nas- 
sau Senior,  and  three  others.  The  inquiry  was  chiefly  conducted  by 
assistant  commissioners,  of  whom  Mr.  Edwin  Chadwick  was  the  nio.st 
active.  Molcsworth  gives  the  following  description  of  the  working  of 
the  system : 

Their   inquiries,   revealed  a   multitude  of   abuses   and   stupidity  in   the  admin- 
istration of   the  poor  laws  far  beyond   what   was  previously  known   or  suspected. 
Jobbery  reigned  supreme  almost  everywhere.      Tradesmen  exacted  exorbitant  prices 
from  the  parish,  and    bribed  the   parish  officers  to  wink  at    their  extortions.      In 
1  Recent  and  Existing  Commerce,  p  98. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


many  instances  the  rates  were  used  to  influence  and  corrupt  the  electors  of  parlia- 
mentary boroughs.  The  attempts  which  in  some  cases  were  made  by  the  overseers 
to  prevent  impositions  were  generally  overruled  by  the  magistrates.  The  scale  of 
relief  given  acted  as  an  inducement  to  improvident  marriages.  In  many  instances  it 
was  found  that  the  able-bodied  paupers  received  higher  allowances  than  the  infirm 
and  disabled.  In  the  workhouse  the  pauper  was  overfed  with  beef  and  mutton,  while 
the  man  who  earned  his  food  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow  could  scarcely  obtain  bread; 
and  the  pauper  often  received  in  relief  a  larger  amount  than  the  industrious  and  inde- 
pendent laborer  was  paid  in  wages.  When  relief  was  once  obtained,  it  was  regarded 
as  a  kind  of  vested  interest,  to  be  continued  through  life.  Often  pauper  parents  begat 
pauper  children;  and  so  on  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation.  Relief  was  given  in 
the  most  careless  manner,  and  with  gross  partiality.  In  Buckinghamshire  it  was 
allowed  to  all  who  chose  to  ask  for  it.  The  recipients  were  often  known  to  be  thieves 
or  prostitutes.  In  many  instances  the  allowance  was  extorted  by  violence  and 
threats.  Since  the  commencement  of  machine-breakings  and  rick-burnings,  the 
amount  had  greatly  increased,  the  allowance  often  being,  in  fact,  a  bribe  given  to  the 
rioters  in  the  hope  of  propitiating  them.  In  some  cases,  at  least,  it  was  shown  to  be  the 
cause  of  the  outrages  committed.  Relief  was  insolently  demanded  for  children,  whose 
fathers  were  receiving  high  wages,  or  wasting  their  earnings  in  drunkenness  and  dis- 
orderly living.  In  Sussex  laborers  refused  to  work,  preferring  to  live  on  the  parish 
allowance.  ' 

Upon  the  coining  in  of  the  report  of  the  commissioners,  which  dis- 
closed the  facts  as  briefly  summarized  above  by  Molesworth,  the  new  Poor 
Law  was  enacted,  embodying  substantially  the  recommendation  of  the 
commission.  Although  severe  in  many  of  its  features,  it  was  designed  to 
deal  with  a  condition  which  had  become  a  menace  to  the  welfare  of  the 
nation.  By  this  act  of  1834  (4th  and  5th,  William  IV.),  the  principal 
features  of  the  act  of  Elizabeth  and  George  I.  were  restored.  Outdoor 
relief  was  abolished.  The  labor  test  was  restored  and  able-bodied  paupers 
could  not  receive  assistance,  except  on  condition  of  their  entering  the 
workhouse  and  rendering  ser\ace  to  the  government  in  compensation  for 
the  aid  received.  A  person  able  to  work  could  not  receive  assistance  for 
himself  or  his  family  except  by  entering  the  workhouse.  The  admin- 
istration of  the  law  was  placed  under  the  control  of  a  central  body,  which 
directed  its  enforcement  through  local  guardians:  subsequently  the  coun- 
try was  divided  into  unions  embracing  large  districts.  The  result  of  this 
legi.slation  demonstrates  that  corrupt  administration  of  a  bad  system  was 
the  chief  cause  of  the  large  public  expenditures  and  the  large  number  of 
persons  assisted  under  the  old  law.     Molesworth  says: 

The  hopes  of  its  authors  were  more  than  fulfilled,  and  the  predictions  of  its 
opponents  signally  falsified.  The  introduction  of  the  new  act  was  speedily  fol- 
lowed by  diminished  rates,  higher  wages,  employment  for  all  who  sought  it,  a  cessa- 
tion of  riots,  rick -burnings  and  machine-breaking,  and  a  great  improvement  in  the 
habits  and  character  of  the  working  classes.  ^ 

The  fact  that  such  changes  immediately  followed  the  repeal  of  the 
old  law  and  that  rates  were  reduced  one-half  in  less  than  three  years  shows 

1  History  of  England.  Vol.  I.,  p.  310.        2  Id.,  p.  318. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


that  the  records  of  the  number  relieved,  and  the  amounts  expended  by 
the  parishes  furnished  no  proof  of  destitution,  lack  of  employment,  or 
isery  among  the  laboring  masses  during  the  protective  period.  The 
citation  of  the  old  records  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade  as  an  evi- 
dence against  the  policy  of  protection,  is  simply  a  part  of  the  general  plan 
of  misrepresentation  and  deception  which  is  resorted  to  upon  all  branches 
of  the  subject,  to  discredit  the  system  of  protection  and  to  sustain  the 
policy  of  free  trade.  In  comparing  the  extent  of  the  pauperism  which 
prevails  in  England  at  the  present  time  with  that  which  marked  the 
earlier  period,  it  should  be  noted  that  while  the  old  Poor  I^aw  gave  relief 
to  nearly  every  one  who  asked  and  was  extravagantly  and  corruptly 
administered  to  swell  the  sales  of  localmerchants,  and  while  it  acted  as 
an  encouragement  to  pauperism,  the  present  law  is  administered  in  so 
niggardly  a  way,  and  the  terms  of  relief  imposed  upon  the  able-bodied  and 
the  casually  poor  are  so  humiliating  that  nothing  short  of  the  worst  desti- 
tution, and  the  actual  peril  of  starvation  drive  men  to  seek  public  aid. 
The  policy  of  the  present  law  is  to  discourage  pauperism  and  place  the 
pauper  on  practically  the  same  level  as  the  criminal. 

General  William  Booth,  gives  the  following  description  of  the  present 
administration  of  the  Poor  Laws  in  1890: 

The  first  place  must  naturally  be  giveu  to  the  administration  of  the  Poor  Law. 
Legally  the  State  accepts  the  responsibility  of  providing  food  and  shelter  for  every 
man,  woman,  or  child  who  is  utterly  destitute.  This  responsibility,  it,  however,  prac- 
tically shirks  by  the  imposition  of  conditions  on  the  claimants  of  relief  that  are  hateful 
and  repulsive,  if  not  impossible.  As  to  the  method  of  Poor  Law  administration  in 
dealing  with  inmates  of  workhouses  or  in  the  distribution  of  outdoor  relief,  I  say 
nothing. 

Both  of  these  raise  great  questions  which  lie  outside  my  immediate  pur- 
pose. All  that  I  need  to  do  is  to  indicate  the  limitations— it  may  be  the  necessary 
limitations— under  which  the  Poor  Law  operates.  No  Englishman  can  come  upon  the 
rates  so  long  as  he  has  anything  whatever  left  to  call  his  own.  When  long  continued 
destitution  has  been  carried  on  to  the  bitter  end,  when  piece  by  piece  every  article  of 
domestic  furniture  has  been  sold  or  pawned,  when  all  efforts  to  procure  employment 
have  failed,  and  when  you  have  nothing  left  except  the  clothes  in  which  you  stand,  then 
you  can  present  yourself  before  the  relieving  officer  and  secure  your  lodging  in  the 
workhouse,  the  admini.stration  of  which  varies  infinitely  according  to  the  disposition 
of  the  Board  of  Guardians  under  whose  control  it  happens  to  be. 

If,  however,  you  have  not  sunk  to  such  despair  as  to  be  willing  to  barter  your 
liberty  for  the  sake  of  food,  clothing  and  shelter  in  the  workhouse,  but  are  only  tem- 
porarily out  of  employment  seeking  work,  then  you  can  go  to  the  Casual  Ward. 
There  you  are  taken  in  and  provided  for  on  the  principle  of  making  it  as  disagreeable 
as  possible  for  yourself,  in  order  to  deter  you  from  again  accepting  the  hospitality  of 
the  rates— and  of  course  in  defence  of  this  a  good  deal  can  be  said  by  the  political 
economist.  But  what  seems  utterly  indefensible  is  the  careful  precautions  which  are 
taken  to  render  it  impossible  for  the  unemployed  Casual  to  resume  promptly  after  his 
night's  rest  Lhc  search  for  work.  ITndcr  the  existing  regulations,  if  you  are  compelled 
to  seek  refuge  on  Monday  night  in  the  Casual  Ward,  you  are  bound  to  "•""" 

at  least  till  Wednesday  morning. 


FEEE  TRADE  I'OIJVY  A   FAILURE. 


Under  the  present  system,  therefore,  the  penalty  for  seeking  shelter  from  the 
streets  is  a  whole  day  and  two  nights,  with  an  almost  impossible  task,  which,  fail- 
ing to  do,  the  victim  is  liable  to  be  dragged  before  a  magistrate  and  committed  to 
the  gaol  as  a  rogue  and  vagabond,  while  in  the  Casual  Ward  their  treatment  is 
practically  that  of  a  criminal.  They  sleep  in  a  cell  with  an  apartment  at  the  back, 
in  which  the  work  is  done,  receiving  at  night  half  a  pound  of  gruel  and  eight 
ounces  of  bread  and  the  next  morning  the  same  for  breakfast,  with  half  a  pound  of 
oakum  and  stones  to  occupy  himself  for  a  day. 

The  beds  are  mostly  of  the  plank  type,  the  coverings  scant,  the  comfort  nil. 
Be  it  remembered  that  this  is  the  treatment  meted  out  to  those  who  are  supposed  to 
be  Casual  poor,  in  temporarj^  difficulty,  walking  from  place  to  place  seeking  some 
employment. 

The  treatment  of  women  is  as  follows :  Each  Casual  has  to  stay  in  the  Casual 
Ward  two  nights  and  one  day,  during  which  time  they  have  to  pick  two  pounds  of 
oakum  or  go  to  the  washtub  and  work  out  the  time  there.  While  at  the  washtub 
thev  are  allowed  to  wash  their  own  clothes,  but  not  otherwise.  If  seen  more  than 
once  in  the  same  Casual  Ward,  they  are  detained  three  days  by  order  of  the  inspector 
each  time  seen,  or  if  sleeping  twice  in  the  same  month  the  master  of  the  ward  has 
power  to  detain  them  three  days.  There  are  four  inspectors  who  visit  different 
Casual  Wards;  and  if  the  Casual  is  seen  by  any  of  the  inspectors  (who  in  turn  visit 
all  the  Casual  Wards)  at  any  of  the  wards  they  have  previously  visited  they  are 
detained  three  days  in  each  one.  The  inspector,  who  is  a  male  person,  visits  the 
wards  at  all  unexpected  hours,  even  visiting  while  the  females  are  in  bed.  The 
beds  in  some  wards  are  composed  of  straw  and  two  rugs,  in  others  cocoanut  fibre 
and  two  rugs.  The  Casuals  rise  at  5.45  a.  m.  and  go  to  bed  at  7  p.  m.  If  they  do 
not  finish  picking  their  oakum  before  7  p.  m.,  they  stay  up  till  they  do.  If  a  Cas- 
ual does  not  come  to  the  ward  before  12.30,  midnight,  they  keep  them  one  day  extra. 

The  theorj'  of  the  sj'stem  is  this,  that  individuals  casually  poor  and  out  of 
work,  being  destitute  and  without  shelter,  may  upon  application  receive  shelter  for 
the  night,  supper  and  a  breakfast,  and  in  return  for  this,  shall  perform  a  task  of 
work,  not  necessarily  in  repayment  for  the  relief  received,  but  simply  as  a  test  of 
their  willingness  to  work  for  their  living.  The  work  given  is  the  same  as  that 
given  to  felons  in  gaol,  oakum-picking  and  stone-breaking. 

The  work  too  is  excessive  in  proportion  to  what  is  received.  Four  pounds  of 
oakum  is  a  great  task  to  an  expert  and  an  old  hand  To  a  novice  it  can  only  be 
accomplished  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  if  indeed  it  can  be  done  at  all  It  is 
even  in  excess  of  the  amount  demanded  from  a  criminal  in  gaol.  The  stone- 
breaking  test  is  monstrous.  Half  a  ton  of  stone  from  any  man  in  return  for  par- 
tially supplying  the  cravings  of  hunger  is  an  outrage  which,  if  we  read  of  as 
having  occurred  in  Russia,  or  Siberia,  would  find  Exeter  Hall  crowded  with  an 
indignant  audience,  and  Hyde  Park  filled  with  strong  oratory.  But  because  this 
system  exists  at  our  own  doors,  very  little  notice  is  taken  of  it.  These  tasks  are 
expected  from  all  comers,  starved,  ill-clad,  half-fed  creatures  from  the  streets,  foot- 
sore and  worn  out,  and  yet  unless  it  is  done  the  alternative  is  the  magistrate  and 
the  gaol.  The  old  system  was  bad  enough,  which  demanded  the  picking  of  one 
pound  of  oakum.  As  soon  as  this  task  was  accomplished,  which  generalh'  kept 
them  to  the  middle  of  the  next  day,  it  was  thus  rendered  impossible  for  them  to 
seek  work,  and  they  were  forced  to  spend  another  night  in  the  ward.  The  Local 
Government  Board,  however,  stepped  in  and  the  Casual  was  ordered  to  be  detained 
for  the  whole  day  and  the  second  night,  the  amount  of  labor  required  from  him 
being  increased  four-fold.' 

'  Darkest  England  and  the  Way  Out,  pp.  67-70. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  writer  to  discuss  the  merits  or  tlie  demer- 
its of  the  system,  but  simply  to  point  out  that  a  policy  which  is  evidently 
framed  and  administered,  in  part  at  least,  for  the  purpose  of  discouraging 
the  destitute  from  applying  to  the  public  for  assistance,  furnishes  an 
unfair  basis  for  comparison  with  the  former  extravagant  administration 
of  the  old  law.  It  should  be  further  mentioned  that  by  the  advance 
of  civilization  the  general  improvements  under  which,  during  the  last 
half  century,  man's  ability  to  supply  his  wants  have  been  so  largely 
increased,  the  tendency  among  civilized  nations  has  been  toward  the 
decrease  of  crime,  destitution  and  pauperism.  Taking  into  consideration 
this  fact,  the  increase  in  pauperism  in  recent  years  in  England  furnishes 
more  pronounced  evidence  that  it  is  brought  about  by  an  unwise  and 
degrading  economic  policy.  Independent  of  all  comparisons,  the  free 
trade  economist  should  not  be  permitted  to  evade  the  responsibility  which 
is  now  resting  upon  the  English  people,  by  raising  a  false  and  irrelevant 
issue.  The  policy  of  free  trade  must  be  tried  and  tested  by  present  con- 
ditions. The  degree  of  idleness,  destitution  and  pauperism  existing  in 
England  under  free  trade  at  the  present  time,  after  forty  3'earsof  growth, 
of  most  marvelous  civilizing  and  elevating  agencies,  is  the  important  fact 
to  be  considered.  Although  the  official  records  and  statistics  which  are 
used  as  a  basis  of  comparison,  are  very  imperfect  and  disclose  only  a 
small  part  of  the  miserj'  which  so  universally  prevails,  yet  when  taken 
by  themselves  they  make  a  very  bad  showing. 

The  oiEcial  returns  of  the  British  Government- as  reported  in  the 
Statistical  Abstract,  give  the  number  of  paupers  relieved  on  the  first  of 
January,  1891  and  1894,  as  follows: 

1891.  1894. 

England  and  Wales, 774,905  812,441 

Scotland, 93,422  95, 196 

Ireland,      107,129  104,031 

Total 975,456  1,011,668 

Paupers  in  Europe  in  1888,  given  by  Mulhall,  Dictionary  of  Sta- 
tistics: 

Population.  Paupers. 

France 38,800,000  290,000 

Germany, 48,600,000  320,000 

Russia, 92,000,000  350,000 

Austria, 40, 100,000  290,000 

Italy,      30,300,000  270,000 

Holland, 4,600,000  88,000 

Total 253,600,000  1,55.8,000 

The  population  of  the  United  Kingdom  in  1891  was  37,731,415.  By 
the  oflRcial  records  then,  of  the  British  Government,  it  appears  that  one 
out  of  every  twenty-eight  was  a  pauper. '   It  may  be  well  to  mention  in 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE.    ■ 

this  connection  that  the  census  of  the  United  States  in  1890  returns  73,045 
paupers  (United  States  Census  Bulletin  of  1890,  No.  154),  out  of  a  popu- 
lation of  62,000,000,  or  one  in  every  851. 

The  official  returns  of  the  United  Kingdom  are  very  imperfect  and 
only  contain  a  partial  statement  of  the  pauperism  which  actually  exists. 
Mr.  Sidney  Webb  said : 

Neither  the  Local  Government  Board  nor  the  Times  ever  tells  the  world  that 
over  three  millions  of  separate  individuals  were  driven  to  accept  Poor  Law  relief 
during  last  year— one  in  ten  of  our  wage-earners.  The  Local  Government  Board 
returns  carefully  conceal  the  fact  that  at  least  25  per  cent  of  all  persons  over  sixty- 
five  years  of  age  are  paupers,  and  40  per  cent  of  those  over  seventy. ' 

The  official  returns  exclude  from  their  enumeration  "vagrants"  and 
those  given  "casual  relief,"  and  simply  include  those  of  other  classes 
who  are  being  assisted  on  the  first  day  of  January  of  each  year  at  the 
time  when  the  return  is  made.  The  millions  of  laborers  who,  through 
lack  of  employment,  sickness  and  misfortune,  apply  for  casual  relief 
during  the  year,  are  not  mentioned  in  the  returns.  This  fact  accounts 
for  the  difference  in  numbers  given  in  the  Statistical  Abstract  and  the 
reports  of  ofiicial  investigating  committees. 

It  is  an  economic  dogma  that  all  forms  of  poor  relief  and  public 
charity  tend  to  encourage  and  increase  pauperism.  Under  this  claim  a 
system  of  administration  which  is  most  humiliating  and  subjects  the 
unfortunate  to  mo.st  severe  hardships,  and  makes  the  yoke  of  poverty 
most  galling,  is  justified.  It  is  the  opinion  of  many,  however,  that  con- 
tributions and  expenditures  are  kept  as  low  as  possible  solely  to  protect 
the  rate-payer.  The  free  trade  party  in  England  has  exercised  great 
shrewdness  in  crowding  as  much  of  the  care  of  the  poor  as  possible  on 
the  labor  unions.  Were  it  not  for  the  vast  sums  expended  each  year  by 
the  unions  in  out-of-work  and  sick  benefits,  the  pauper  class  would  be 
very  largely  increased.  It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  there  are  over 
sixty  private  charitable  societies  organized  for  the  relief  of  the  desti 
tute,  supported  by  individual  contributions.  The  vast  sums  expended 
through  these  sources  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  in  making  calculations 
of  the  extent  of  this  burden,  and  especially  when  comparisons  are  made 
with  former  periods,  when  there  were  no  labor  unions  and  few  charita- 
ble societies. 

In  January,  1885,  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison,  in  commenting  on  the 
widespread  destitution  before  the  Industrial  Remuneration  Conference, 
said: 

To  me  at  least  it  would  be  enough   to  condemn   modern    society   as  hardly  an 

advance  on  slavery  or  serfdom,  if   the  permanent  condition  of  industry  were  to  be 

that  which  we  behold,  that  90  per  cent  of   the  actual    producers  of  wealth  have  no 

home  that  they  can  call  their  own   beyond   the  end   of  the   week,  have  no  bit  of 

iThe  I/)ndon  Program,  1891,  p.  97. 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


soil,  or  so  much  as  a  room  that  belongs  to  them ;  have  nothing  of  value  of  any 
kind,  except  as  much  old  furniture  as  will  go  in  a  cart ;  have  the  precarious  chance 
of  weekly  wages,  which  barely  suffice  to  keep  them  in  health ;  are  housed  for  the 
most  part  in  places  that  no  man  thinks  fit  for  his  horse;  are  separated  by  so  narrow 
a  margin  from  destitution  that  a  month  of  bad  trade,  sickness,  or  unexpected  loss, 
brings  them  face  to  face  with  hunger  and  pauperism." 

After  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  General  Booth  reaches 
the  conclusion  that  the  destitute  army  is  3,000,000  strong.     He  says: 

According  to  Lord  Brabazon  and  Mr.  Samuel  Smith,  "Between  two  and  three 
millions  of  our  population  are  always  pauperized  and  degraded. ' '  Mr.  Chamber- 
lain says  there  is  a  "population  equal  to  that  of  the  metropolis" — that  is,  between 
four  and  five  millions — "which  has  remained  constantly  in  a  state  of  abject  desti- 
tution and  misery. ' '  Mr.  Giffen  is  more  moderate.  The  submerged  class,  accord- 
ing to  him,  comprises  one  in  five  of  manual  laborers,  six  in  100  of  the  popu- 
lation. Mr.  Giffen  does  not  add  the  third  million  which  is  living  on  the  border 
line.  Between  Mr.  Chamberlain's  four  millions  and  a  half,  and  Mr.  Giffen's 
1,800,000,  I  am  content  to  take  three  millions  as  representing  the  total  strength  of 
the  destitute  army. 

Darkest  England,  then,  may  be  said  to  have  a  population  about  equal  to  that 
of  Scotland.  Three  million  men,  women  and  children,  a  vast  despairing  multitude 
in  a  condition   nominally   free,  but  really   enslaved;  these  it  is  whom  we  have  to 

The  most  trustworthy  and  authentic  evidence  of  the  deplorable  con- 
dition of  the  masses  of  the  English  people  is  found  in  the  Final  Report 
of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor  (quoted  below),  which  was  made  to 
parliament  in  June,  1894,  after  a  most  searching  and  -thorough  investi- 
gation, extending  over  a  period  of  more  than  two  years.  The  official 
character  of  the  statements,  contained  in  the  report,  together  with  the 
fact  that  they  were  based  upon  evidence  presented  before  the  connnis- 
sion,  of  luimerous  witnesses  consisting  of  government  experts,  officials 
and  individuals  who  had  made  a  special  stud}-  of  the  condition  of  the 
masses,  confirms  the  largest  estimates  hitherto  made  by  individuals.  It  is 
a  significant  fact  that  the  lack  of  employment  which  was  shown  to  pre- 
vail so  largely  in  1885-86,  has  continued  up  to  the  present  time,  and  has 
grown  more  severe  and  widespread  as  imports  of  competing  commodities 
have  continued  to  increase.  The  Labor  Commissioners,  referring  to  this 
question  said: 

"Perhaps  the  most  unsatisfactory  of  all  the  features  in  the  present 
relations  between  employers  and  employed,  is  the  irregularity  of  the 
work  of  large  sections  of  the  community.  We  regard  this  irregularity 
as  one  of  the  most  serious  of  the  factors  at  present  tending  to  degrade  the 
standard  of  life."  ' 

Upon  the  question  of  agriculture  it  may  be  well  to  mention  additional 
proof  from  the  report  of  John  E.  Gorst.  To  show  the  permanent  con- 
dition of  laborers  in  this  department,  he  said: 

'  Report,  p.  229.         -  D.irkest  Knglaiul  and  the  Way  Out,  p.  23.       ^  Fiual  Kejwrt,  p.  140. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


The  depressed  condition  of  the  actual  tiller  of  the  soil  in  most  parts  of  the 
United  Kingdom  appears  to  me  to  react  in  a  very  pernicious  way  upon  the  wages 
and  general  conditions  of  labor  of  the  whole  body  of  the  less  skilled  workers.  The 
insufficient  wages  of  the  agricultural  laborer,  his  long  and  monotonous  hours  of 
toil,  the  dilapidated  dwelling  in  which  he  is  too  often  housed,  the  absence  of  lei- 
sure and  all  interest  in  his  life,  the  difficulties  (only  now  in  process  of  removal)  of 
obtaining  the  use  of  land  for  his  own  cultivation,  and  the  prospect  of  the  work- 
house as  the  ultimate  destiny  of  his  old  age,  all  combine  to  induce  the  younger 
generation  to  denounce  the  vocation  of  their  fathers  and  to  migrate  into  the  towns, 
where  they  displace  the  older  and  less  efficient  workers  in  industries  already  over- 
crowded. ' 

Mr.  William  Abraham,  Mr.  Michael  Austin,  Mr.  James  Mawdsley 
and  Mr.  Tom  Mann,  members  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor,  in 
their  minority  report  to  parliament,  dated  June,  1894,  in  describing  the 
condition  of  the  working  classes,  as  disclosed  by  the  evidence  presented 
before  the  commission,  said: 

Notwithstanding  a  great  increase  in  national  wealth,  whole  sections  of  the 
population  comprising,  as  we  believe,  at  least  five  millions,  are  unable  to  obtain  a 
subsistence  compatible  with  health  or  efficiency.  Probably  two  millions  are  every 
year  driven  to  accept  Poor  Law  relief  in  one  form  or  another.  In  Loudon,  the 
■wealthiest  and  most  productive  city  of  the  world,  we  learn  from  Mr.  Charles 
Booth's  researches  that  32  per  cent  of  the  total  population  falls  below  the  "Poverty 
Line" — that  guinea  per  week  of  regular  earnings  below  which  no  family  can  live 
in  decency  and  health.  And  when  we  find  that  in  certain  districts  of  the  metrop- 
olis one-half  and  even  three-fifths  of  the  entire  population  fall  below  that  mini- 
mum, and  that  this  state  of  things  arises  from  no  exceptional  distress, 
but  represents  the  outcome  of  fifty  years  of  steady  improvement,  we  cannot  but 
regard  the  situation  as  calling  for  the  gravest  consideration  of  the  government. 
Nor  is  this  destitution  confined  to  unskilled  or  specially  degraded  classes  of  workers. 
Even  in  those  grades  in  which  labor  is  better  paid,  the  statistics  of  the  Labor 
Department  show  that  a  large  number  of  competent  mechanics  are  at  all  times  out 
of  employment,  whilst  in  periods  of  trade  depression  many  thousands  of  men  are 
in  the  same  condition 

And  if  we  turn  from  the  occupations  of  the  workers  to  the  homes  in  which  they 
live,  the  state  of  things  appears  to  us  equally  unsatisfactory.  We  do  not  here 
refer  so  much  to  the  insanitary  state  of  the  slums  as  to  the  actual  amount  of 
house  accommodation  which  each  family  obtains.  Nearly  two  and  a  half  millions 
of  persons  in  England  and  Wales  alone,  live  in  tenements  which  the  Registrar- 
General  declares  to  be  overcrowded.  The  statistics  of  the  census,  and  those  of 
Mr.  Charles  Booth,  indicate  that  probably  from  20  to  33  per  cent  of  the  whole 
population  of  some  of  our  largest  towns  dwell  in  one-room  homes.  In  London 
alone,  we  infer  that  a  quarter  of  a  million  persons,  including  probably  100,000 
children,  must  be  living  under  the  conditions  which  are  implied  by  the  occupation 
by  a  whole  family,  of  a  single  small  room  for  all  the  purposes  of  domestic  life. 
The  percentage  of  one-room  homes  in  Glasgow,  Kilmarnock  and  other  Scotch 
towns  is  even  greater,  whilst  of  English  towns  the  Registrar-General  reports  that 
Gateshead,  Newcastle,  Sunderland,  Plymouth,  Halifax,  Bradford  and  Huddersfield 
all  showed  a  higher  percentage  of  overcrowding  than  London  as  a  whole.  In 
many  districts  of  Ireland  the  conditions  are  equally  bad.      Nor  are  the  evils  of  bad 


Minority 
Report  of 
Labor  Com- 


'  Fifth  and  Final  Report  of  the  Royal  Con 


1  Labor,  June,  1S94,  p.  151 


RETURN  TO  FREE  TRADE. 


bousing  couiiiied  to  the  towns.  The  reports  of  the  Assistant  Commii 
the  agricultural  population  reveal  in  nearly  all  the  districts  a  terrible  deficiency 
of  house  accommodation,  even  for  the  at  present  diminishing  population  of  the 
country  side. 

Finally  we  have  the  fact  that  all  who  survive  to  the  age  of  seventy,  one  out  of 
every  three  is  believed  to  be  in  receipt  of  poor  relief.  In  L,ondon  one  death  in 
every  six  takes  place  in  the  workhouse  or  workhouse  inlirmary.  In  some  rural  dis- 
tricts it  has  been  said  nearly  every  aged  agricultural  laborer  is  a  pauper.  We  have 
been  unable  to  ascertain  the  actual  number  of  pauper  funerals,  but  we  believe  that 
it  would  be  found  that  throughout  the  whole  kingdom  one  person  out  of  everj' 
four  or  five  is  buried  by  the  parish. 

It  is  impossible  to  refrain  from  connecting  this  deplorable  condition  of  the 
working  class  with  the  fact  that  two-thirds  of  the  annual  product  of  the  community 
is  absorbed  by  one-fourth  of  its  members,  and  that  the  annual  tribute  of  rents, 
royalties,  and  dividends  levied  upon  the  industry  of  the  nation  amounts  to  nearly 
five  hundred  millions  sterling.  ' 

Never  was  such  an  indictment  framed  against  an  economic  policj'. 
A  similar  condition  of  the  working  classes  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  civil- 
ized country  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Were  the  foregoing  statements 
contained  in  reports  of  United  States  Consuls,  or  in  letters  written  by 
the  most  trustworthy  and  candid  protectionists,  they  would  be  denounced 
and  discredited  by  every  professional  free  trader  in  the  world.  But 
coming  as  they  do,  from  an  official  report  to  the  British  parliament,  from 
men  who  were  held  in  such  high  esteem  by  the  government  as  to  appear 
worth)'  of  executing  such  an  important  trust,  they  cannot  be  questioned. 
The  report  is  above  impeachment.  The  facts  set  forth,  are  more  appall- 
ing because  they  are  true.  ' '  Throughout  the  ivhole  kingdom  one  person 
out  of  every  four  or  five  is  buried  by  the  parish.''  What  a  fact  to  con- 
template !  "  Of  all  who  survive  to  the  age  of  seventy,  one  out  of  every 
three' '  is  a  pauper.  Death  at  middle  life  is  better  than  old  age.  Yet, 
even  then,  a  pauper's  grave  is  the  lot  of  one  out  of  five.  No  amount  of 
accumulated  wealth  centred  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  can  compensate  a 
nation  for  such  a  condition  of  the  masses.  A  vast  commerce,  inntmiera- 
ble  ships  visiting  every  harbor  in  the  world,  are  dumb  and  speechless 
as  expressions  of  national  growth  and  prosperity,  when  the  harbors  from 
which  they  are  sent  and  the  countrj'  whose  flag  flies  at  their  masthead, 
are  festering  with  destitution  and  despair.  The  loud  boastings  of  the 
champions  of  a  policy  under  which  such  conditions  exist  cannot  long 
drown  the  voice  of  multitudes  pleading  for  work.  No  false  statistics,  no 
amount  of  jugglery  or  of  legerdemain  with  alleged  "economic  truths" 
can  cover  up  or  explain  away  the  undeniable  evidence  of  the  terrible 
effects  of  the  policy  of  free  trade  upon  the  social  and  industrial  life  of  the 
English  people.  This  is  the  result  of  nearly  fifty  years  of  an  economic 
policy  which  was  put  out  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates,  as  a  "cure- 
all,"  a  system  which,    before    it   became    tested  by  actual  experience, 

'Fifth  and  Final  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor,  pp.  127,  isS  and  129. 


FREE  TRADE  POLICY  A  FAILURE. 


received  the  approval  and  endorsement  of  many  able  and  conscientious 
political  economists.  Sustained  at  first  by  assumptions,  prophecies  and 
speculations,  it  has  been  condemned  and  exposed  by  a  fair  trial.  Orig- 
inally false  in  theory,  it  has  been  equally  infamous  in  its  results.  Had 
it  not  been  for  the  patriotism,  wisdom  and  humanity  of  the  people  of 
other  nations,  this  economic  devil-fish  would  have  fastened  its  tentacles 
upon  all  nations,  and  dragged  the  whole  world  into  its  pool.  It  has 
reduced  to  degradation  and  misery  the  wage-earners  of  the  greatest  com- 
mercial nation  on  the  globe,  and  bound  them  to  a  condition  of  servitude 
in  some  respects  worse  than  chattel  slavery.  Adopted  at  a  time  when 
the  most  magnificent  results  had  been  achieved  through  protection,  it  has 
arrested  industrial  growth,  and  sent  the  nation  on  the  road  to  ruin.  Power- 
ful as  a  destroying  agency,  it  has  proven  impotent  and  weak  as  a  saving 
ordinance.  That  "cheapness"  which  was  sought  to  be  secured,  hascheap- 
ened  men  as  well  as  commodities.  The  consumer  has  suffered  with  the  pro- 
ducer. Falling  most  heavily,  and  striking  first  at  the  wage-earner,  it  has 
dealt  blow  after  blow  at  the  whole  industrial  life  of  the  kingdom,  reduced 
profits  of  manufacturers,  incomes  of  clerks,  country  merchants,  mechanics 
and  all  who  depend  on  the  rewards  of  labor  for  subsistence.  It  has  eaten 
into  the  vitals  of  the  nation  like  an  incurable  disease.  Skilled  artisans 
have  fled  the  country,  followed  by  capital  and  industries,  seeking  shelter 
under  that  policy  of  protection  to  home  industries  through  which  alone  a 
nation  can  become  great  and  its  citizens  prosperous.  As  industries  have 
been  supplanted  and  labor  displaced  by  competing  imports,  instead  of 
finding  employment  in  other  industries,  they  have  found  relief  either  in 
emigration  or  in  almshouses.  Goods  have  not  been  paid  for  with  goods. 
Imports  instead  of  stimulating  domestic  production  have  closed  fac- 
tories, thrown  labor  out  of  employment,  silenced  machinery,  and  in- 
creased the  army  of  unemployed  and  beggars.  Instead  of  stimulating 
artisans  and  manufacturers  to  greater  exertion  and  higher  skill,  free  trade 
has  blighted  their  pro-spects,  destroyed  hope  and  left  them  in  despair,  com- 
mitted to  a  life-and-death  struggle  for  existence.  Instead  of  undermin- 
ing and  destroying  foreign  rivals  it  has  forced  them  as  a  means  of  self- 
defence,  to  build  up  industrial  sj'Stems  which  have  arisen  to  menace  and 
cripple  their  would-be  destroyer.  The  greed  and  avarice  upon  which 
the  whole  fabric  was  reared  are  meeting  their  just  retribution,  yet  the  inno- 
cent are  suffering  with  the  guilty.  Failing  to  monopolize  the  markets 
of  the  world  it  is  now  powerless  to  defend  markets  at  home.  Mr.  Cob- 
den  and  his  associates  built  their  whole  commercial  policy  on  false 
theories,  false  prophecies  and  false  hopes,  which  were  to  be  shattered 
and  destroyed  by  a  few  years  of  actual  experience.  This  is  free  trade 
in  England. 


TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Tables  Showing  Foreign  Trade  of 

Table    No.    12. — Schedule   Showing   Imports  of  Agricultural  Products 

18  po.    Compiled  from  the  Official  Returns 


KO. 

Articles. 

■836. 

.3... 

1856. 

i860. 

T 

Oxen,  bulls,  etc., 

$  5,760,065 
1,311.015 
5,337,250 
1,782,500 
13,128,700 
5,375,675 

1  7,666,650 

2,769.815 
4,799.690 
2.044.915 
20,337.975 
7,875.500 

16,140 

82,700,075 
16,785,780 
13,120,790 
857.955 
3,089,230 
3,967,255 
95,100 
15,829,020 

3 

4 

I 

7 

Bacon  and  hams, 

Butter  and  margarine,  .... 

Cheese, 

1  Confectionery,       \ 

11,705,320 
1,571,165 

1    1,863,635 
2,533.805 

Corn  and  grain  : 

62,152,185 

5,851,545 

6,881,085 

279,810 

914,620 

3,090,500 

5,790 

14,148,970 

9 

Barley,            

Rve                                       

13 
14 
15 

Buckwheat 

966,740 

23,465,745 

Total  com  and  grain,     .    .    . 

16 

17 

1966,740 

123,465,745 

193.324,505 

19,892,910 

48,560 

1,392,110 
314,005 
929.750 
998,430 
171,015 

2,157,100 

$136,445,203 
21,568,080 

fOats,    maize,    etc.,    Indian  "| 
\       corn  and  unenumerated  \ 
{       meal,                                    j 

237.320 

2,392,890 

884,855 

1,917.695 

19 

-IT 

Fish 

23 
24 

2,764,6';s 

Lard,  .              

2,929,980 
289,240 

jMeat,  salted  and  fresh: 
Preserved,  other  than  salted,    . 

-ift 

Mutton   fresh. 

27 

Pork   fresh  and  salted 

1,799,445 

1.933.215 

Total  meat,  salted  and  fresh, 

-S 

11,799.445 

211,625 
96,020 
241,160 

|2, 222,455 

29 
30 

3' 
32 
33 
34 
35 

682,510 

3i6  5='> 
76,4S=; 

Sauces, 

Vinegar 

8,520 
856,710 

10,  =;=;'> 

Total,  ... 

14,243.225 

127,863,185 

$155,137,070 

1219,592,085 

• 

GREAT  BRITAIN  FROM  1S.36  TO  1893. 


Great  Britain  from  1836  to  1892. 

Retained  for  Home  Consumption  by  the   United  Kingdom  from  18^6  to 

of  the  Board  of   Trade  of  Great  Britain. 


1865. 

1870. 

1875- 

1880. 

.885. 

.890. 

No. 

122,007,410 

^15,735,305 

^24,425,560 

$38,949,690 

$35,211,530 

$52,526,750 

8,939.330 

5,756,^65 

10,919,340 

11,329,750 

8,124,995 

3,551.145 

2 

10,604,745 

8,484,670 

32,258,435 

51,024,380 

40,139,050 

45,536,680'   3 

2,022,945 

1,903,195 

2,174,690 

11,956,065 

13,838,975 

20,900,875'   4 

29.352,455 

33,497,925 

41,577,460 

59,608,475 

55,865,185 

66,563,400   5 

12,161,535 

15,888,095 

23,025,685 

24,848,235 

19,584,425 

23.996,6351   6 

41,800 

423,395 

1,449,545 

2,510,105 

3,963,995  { 

1,157,420 
3,109,920 

}^ 

48,814,790 

78,449,705 

137,352,445 

150,338,265 

118,991,985 

117,250,550 

8 

12,623,965 

14,159,425 

23,065,390 

25,022,690 

22,625,050 

24,857,500 

9 

13,855,665 

21,908,035 

26,926,710 

24,613,650 

21,215,890 

19,495,695 

10 

314,040 

4S3.075 

592,070 

221,115 

519,745] 

r  II 

1,593,010 

1,486,330 

3,729.490 

4,165.955 

3,032,865 

8,156,350 

12 

1,979,590 

3,243.775 

7,830,330 

5,049,945 

5,367,775 

13 

69,440 

7,405 

212,005 

63,020 

133,460  J 

1 14 

11,171,980 

28,952,750 

40,548,845 

54,713.560 

42,251,430 

49,315,165 

15 

190,422,480 

1148,690,500 

$240,257,285 

$264,188,200 

$214,138,200 

$219,075,260 

16 

13,043,760 

15,608,345 

24,302,460 

43,193,290 

47,901,665 

44,883,080 

17 

27,040 

99,055 

238,630 

2,144,875 

1,782,800 

1,326,250 

iS 

4,641,235 

5,510,400 

12,791,050 

11,174,685 

14,634,745 

17,126,035 

19 

992,600 

1,164,605 

2,100,675 

2,436,445 

3,253.310 

6,205,760 

2,315,045 

3,414,425 

5,372,925 

6,801,585 

8,040,660 

11,590,910 

21 

1,329.365 

3,562,480 

3,930,360 

22 

2,204,605 

2,064,485 

5,774,940 

4,337,595 

4,901,835 

4,258,550 

23 

2,305,080 

3,627,005 

7,838,920 

8,704,165 

7,590,135 

9,181,520 

24 

183,155 

1,248,635 

4,121,965 

11,465,540 

14,674,010 
7,431,000 
3,319,315 

i5;f8:liC 
2,029,395 

2! 

■  ■2;8i6,865 

3,356,745 

•  •2:884,415 

3,254,920 

27 

13,000,020 

14,605,380 

$7,006,380 

$14,720,460 

$25,424,325 

$45,621,825 

28 

604,130 

1,947,530 

1,604,550 

2,655  035 

2,361,455 

3,225,710 

29 

806,205 

1,224,325 

5.349.845 

14,215,910 

3,619.735 

3,527,970 

30 

742,610 

791,625 

1,635,105 

2,100,355 

3,270,845 

4,459,925 

31 

50,560 

89.295 

83,850 

131,235 

138,315 

32 

341.765 

745. 2S0 

545,000 

1,732,665 

2,170.305 

■  ■3;5 18,865 

33 

256,825 

22,810 

32,945 

52,815 

41,440 

34 

1,161,100 

1,430,475 

2,009,925 

2,723,915 

4,087,165 

3,354,990 

35 

1208,055,280 

$274,054,355 

$452,775,200 

$581,499,930 

1523,647,570 

$598,629,835 

TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Schedule  Shoivhig  Imports  of  Fully  Matiufadured  Articles  Retained 
Compiled  from  the  Official  Returns  of 


.0. 

ARTICLES. 

1836. 

1846. 

1856. 

.860. 

$423,565 

6,S8o 

^ 

Art  works 

3 
4 
5 

Beads, 

$448,930 
306,010 

620.0S5 

Books                                   .    . 

433,635 

865 
569.500 

'284',465 
704,045 
159,730 

2, 148;  965 
604,925 
493,280 
554,435 

:....: 

9 

Chemicals,    ...        

1,702,405 

1211,265 

^429.275 

1,096,980 

13 

Cork                                    

246.895 

280,550 
638,775 

146,835 

3,098,035 

15 

Flowers   artificial,          

575.185 

Glass 

270,695 

1,076,140 

;. 

House  fittings  and  joiner  work,  . 

19 

143,820 

•54:585 
244.980 
I. 383. 210 
639,255 
457,220 
462,970 
649,065 

502,420 
315,730 
121,825 
73.470 

150,530 

Iron  and  .steel  wrought,  ormanu- 

1  ■    ■    •    ■ 

1               .    . 

220,335 

->i 

Lace                                             •    ■ 

277.805 

->-> 

186,370 

286,800 

2,756,480 

309,  iSs 

24 
11 

Linen                                  

192,545 

265,025 

532,800 

848,315 

Oil,  chemical  essential  and  per- 

369,780 

->s 

791.520 

29 
30 
31 

67,885 

654.250 

129,730 

11,245.855 

146,890 

378,340 

33 
34 

39 
40 

41 
42 

319,275 

5.232,970 

1,097.865 
306,720 
975.020 

6.596.705 
932.645 

7.910,125 

2,686,840 

358,920 

1,676,690 

640,930 

1.327.250 

5,910,415 

668,110 

Unennmeraled, 

Total, 

219.195 

215,110 

4.334.560 

$5,037,510  j$8,946,450 

142.917,475 

$49,354,900 

GREAT  BEITAIN  FJiOM  1SS6  TO  lSt):>. 


for  Home  Consumption  by  the  United  Kingdom  from  1836  to  i8go. 
the  Board  of  Trade  of  Great  Britaiti. 


.865. 

1870. 

.875. 

1880. 

1885. 

1890. 

No. 

11,010,650 

1443,375 

1651,545 

1791,130 

f3.051.170 

$1,372,375 

, 

1 14,045 

224,820 

569.790 

410,500 

279,805 

479.615 

2 

360,595 

220,156 

466,600 

233.070 

201,255 

101,265 

3 

571,880 

571,660 

773,825 

803,420 

960,320 

1,293,910 

4 

459.120 

278,205 

470,590 

233,305 

279.7S5 

626,135 

5 

231.525 

590,965 

1,641,310 

3.265,405 

1.419.845 

1,765,300 

6 

283,175 

187,215 

197,495 

373,330 

119,380 

78,440 

7 

249.695 

173,850 

465.220 

517.045 

1,915.115 

1,657,150 

8 

2,177.035 

1,961,115 

4.586,745 

4.967.860 

5.563,255 

5,961,660 

Q 

809,480 

744,975 

1,874,100 

2,083,140 

2,326,480 

2,931,620 

10 

1,027,410 

1,245,870 

1,919,100 

2.407,610 

1,828,215 

2,355,375 

II 

391,600 

284,040 

194.535 

380,135 

177,775 

392,900 

12 

490.350 

652,720 

1.856.595 

1,700,490 

2,164.525 

2,904,260 

13 

2,803,060 

4,354,650 

5,400,290 

9.270,425 

7,183,030 

9.838,495 

14 

282,210 

343,910 

451.295 

130,890 

437.045 

1,759,350 

1,493,965 

1,326,410 

2,535,420 

2,292,465 

1.352,625 

1,804,480 

16 

2,934,045 

4.223,820 

7.887,365 

7,947,460 

7.503.435 
1.327.180 

9,843,290 
3,082,395 

18 

2,904.950 

296,220 

723,520 

584,620 

717,660 

792,635 

19 

2,012,965 

2,381,630 

5,472,025 

8,610,470 

9,998,075 

13.843.200 

20 

753.0S5 

2,534.905 

1,940,030 

2,251,005 

4,645,895 

4.071.495 

21 

4.964.895 

5,866,895 

12,098,510 

8,505,935 

7,012,620 

8,223,865 

22 

409,090 

646,070 

977.490 

1.357.720 

1,073,500 

987,290 

23 

588,7cx5 

308,995 

1,459,210 

1,278,675 

900,525 

1.849.875 

24 

592.355 

662,915 

837,260 

984,770 

1,183,320 

i.95'^,935 

25 

1,156,290 

939,340 

2,910,100 

2,941.510 

3,103,085 

4,636,000 

26 

278,450 

707,185 

432.165 

452,305 

691,220 

971,500 

27 

1. 159.090 

2,123,575 

^,^,75,910 

3,820,210 

3.724.S05 

4.870,475 

28 

2.183,675 

3,014,960 

4.767.540 

5,256,100 

6,651,680 

9,201,640 

29 

115.500 

168,415 

342,125 

249.290 

248,980 

294,285 

30 

110,950 

138,475 

255.560 

329.395 

411,050 

422,965 

512,835 

1,170,715 

2,990,890 

1,788,080 

2.731.425 

2.909.335 

32 

179,170 

273,945 

285,645 

344,860 

',433.750 

1,981,640 

33 

40,842,555 

74,660,150 

59,680,530 

65.329.560 

48,063,740 

51,915.765 

34 

■95.495 

287,155 

417,720 

428,075 

590.105 

720,670 

35 

1,609,770 

2,601,535 

3.974.435 

3,811,420 

2,015,830 

2,454,380 

36 

6,013,470 

13,460,410 

19.734.245 

21,295,425 

23.153,610 

38,482,570 

37 

767,500 

1,115,690 

1.794.225 

2,540,715 

2,468,300 

3,409,820 

38 

1,270,805 

1,715,815 

2,218,590 

2,008,230 

2,994,085 

3,089,730 

39 

8,305,310 

15,207,475 

20,440,675 

34,907,400 

33.985,820 

38,980,755 

40 

341,875 

798,685 

2,000,730 

1,772,500 

1,648,450 

2,116,05s 

41 

8,861,055 

15,281,420 

19,752,095 

19,106,230 

25,230,380 

28,607,195 

42 

fioi, 8.9,675 

1164,190,331 

1200,823,045 

{227,762,180 

;j222,768,i5o 

1275,040,090 

TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Table 

cdulc   Showing  Imports  of  Partially  Manufactured  Articles  Retained 
piled  from  the  Official  Returns  of  the 


NO. 

Articles. 

1836. 

1846, 

.B36. 

i860. 

I 

Alkali  and  barilla 

$  68,105 

1          27,715 

1  1.036,500 

2 

f  Copper  regulus  precipitate,  "j 
\      and  part  wrought  and  un-  \ 
wrought, 

Included 

with     copper    ore   in 

Table    No. 

3 
4 

5 

395,300 

1,068,170 

2S2  800 

So,495 
iu    Table 

f  Flax,  dressed,  ton  or  cor- 1 
\     dilla  of,                                  / 

Included 

with    und 

6 

f  Hemp,  dressed,  ton  or  cor- 1 
\      dilla  of,                                    / 

Included 

with    und 

ressed     hem 

p  in  Table 

7 

/Iron,    pig,    bars,    etc.,    un- \ 
\     wrought,                               J 

910,240 

1.423.085 

3.385,565 

2,835.245 

<( 

54.365 

215, 1  ',T 

9 

lO 

Lead,  pig  or  sheet,      

73.500 

231.195 

1,121,390 

2,340,400 

II 

Leather,      

1,684,450 

1,725.065 

12 

Linen  yarn, 

157,775 

43.675 

18,630 

57.325 

13 

Oil,  seed  and  turpentine,      .    . 





3.825,810 

14 
15 

Oils 

14.598,115 
4,184,580 

Silk,  thrown, 

1,250,840 

/Stones,    rough   and   hewn,  \ 
\     not  works  of  art,                 / 

17 

Tin,  blocks,  bars,  slabs,  etc.,   . 

2,213,980 

1,598.405 

18 

Wood,  sawn  and  staves,    .    .    . 

25.098,795 

27,915,990 

19 

7n 

518,670 
1,272,600 

2,351,400 

Zinc,  crude  iu  cakes,     .... 

I,5I2,OSS 

Total, 

$1,209,620 

12,948,795 

154.856,955 

160,672,325 

GREAT  BRITAIN  FROM  ISSe  TO  1893. 


for  Home  Consumption  by  the  United  Kingdom  from  i8j6  to  i8go.     Cotn 
Board  of  Trade  of  Great  Britaiti. 


1865. 

1870. 

1875. 

1880. 

1S85. 

1890. 

NO. 

$  1,158,080 

1  732,215 

1      623,680 

$     342,555 

$     215,125 

$     106,495 

1 

15,1 . . . 

2 

D,  j 

1,772,575 

1,991,540 

1,868,305 

1,401,860 

1,625,490 

2,220,095 

3 

8,835 

142,875 

674,625 

2,248,380 

2,336,630 

2,193,095 

4 

No.   IS,  \  . 

5 

No.    15, 1  . 

2,373.565 

2.378,990 

4,073,540 

2,764,515 

2,617,015 

1,958,925 

7 

448,060 

284,925 

374,595 

92,100 

173,510 

235,590 

8 

312,555 

271,960 

782,895 

1,448,100 

456,480 

9 

3,314,750 

4,969,530 

8,657,3cx) 

7,405,385 

5,886,825 

9,468,835 

10 

2,342,155 

4,774,175 

15,231,580 

15,645,840 

23,125,585 

24,280,375 

II 

349,810 

228,180 

1,005,470 

1,336,320 

1,141,815 

3,408,035 

12 

4,389,565 

3,644,800 

4,925,535 

4,483,250 

3,559,115 

5,759,055 

13 

21,156,925 

22,788,545 

24,993,155 

21,335,295 

22,955,480 

16,317,605 

14 

2,578,175 

75,560 

1,219,290 

935,875 
2,444,230 

2,211,830 
3,149,735 
5,693,785 

15 
16 

1,716,805 

2,305,845 

5,439,140 

4,827,315 

17 

37,758,200 

40,524,200 

47,494,715 

55,106,025 

50,046,345 

57,875,320 

18 

4,983,105 

8,137,405 

7,321,135 

9,134,575 

9.831,715 

8,577,470 

19 

2,060,235 

1,674,430 

2,510,065 

2,881,660 

4,053,620 

6,117,320 

20 

183,832,665 

197,468,385 

1125,540,360 

;jSi3i,oo7,26o 

1138,084.675 

1150,030,045 

TABLES  SUOM-ING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Table 

Schedule  Showing  Imports  of  Ra'iv  Materials  Retained  for 
Compiled  from  the  Official  Returns  of 


No. 

A.„™. 

1836. 

1846. 

1856. 

i860. 

T 

Bones, 

^857,240 

1,637,320 

180,620 

fSo8,68o 

2,008,410 

209,510 

1,738,565 
540,805 

11,610,165 

639,270 

115,512,270 

11,532,920 

3 
4 
5 

6 

Brimstones,      

Bristles, 

i',63o!68o 

1,647,665 

Copper  ore  regulus  precipi- 
tate,       wrought,       part 
wrought  and  un  wrought, 

Cork, 

Cotton, 

302,430 
246,895 

581,185 

280,550 

55,832,935 

151,843,495 

t 

336,310 

9 

TO 

780,505 
2,120,945 

27,535,075 
714,720 

6961640 
1,548,825 
10,662, 130 

426,190 

Dye  wood,    .    . 

2,771,600 

II 

Flax  and  hemp,  dressed  or 
undressed,  ton  or  codilla 
of, 

17,800,710 
1,124,765 

14,441,645 
1,458,640 

T-' 

Gum      .    .               

1,010,030 

13 

14 

Gutta  percha              .... 

774,370 

405,705 

215,110 

6,678,690 

Hair  (goats')  or  wool,  .    .    . 
Hides                       

219,195 
4,517,155 

2,081.945 

11,781,435 

17 

497,450 

19 

Isinglass 

Jutes          .            ... 

115,840 

109,015 

184,090 
3,028,275 
1,268,165 

400,145 

3,157,750 

23 

24 

11 

Rags  for  paper, 

259.140 

247,200 

1,137,885 

1,220,325 

2,531,540 

24,342,670 

30,809,790 

5,202,040 

13,230,780 

126,315 

294.390 

529.205 

23,055,275 

33,575,485 

8,926,350 

1,576,480 

Saltpetre, 

3,027,995 

Seeds, 

2,520,595 

5,826,3-5 
1,920,875 
235.685 
4.984,520 
66,753.265 
8,746,920 

3,431,025 
8,118,185 
1,304,270 
5,527,185 

242,815 

360,090 

5.794,310 

7,818,845 

28 
29 
30 
31 

32 

33 
34 

P 

Silks, 

Skins,  furs  and  pelts,    .    .    . 
Tallow  and  stearine,      .    .    . 
Tin, 

32,530,600 
1,880,540 

20,060,550 
219,050 

Whalefins,       

298,930 

Wood  and  timber,     .    .    .    . 
Wool                            .    . 

24,140,705 

43,718,700 

Total              

$127,618,365 

$115,874,000 

$327,859,690 

$395,969,515 

GREAT  BRITAIN  FROM  1S36  TO  ISVU. 


No.  15. 

Home  Consumptio>i  by  the  United  Kingdoin  fron 
the  Board  of  Trade  of  Great  Britain. 


iSj6  to  i8g>o. 


1865. 

1870. 

.875. 

.880. 

.883. 

.8.. 

No. 

$2,144,885 

$3,146,040 

13,514,475 

j2,6i4,58o 

12,162,745 

$2,247,630 

J 

1,746,385 

1,903,315 

1,894,245 

i,2i6,88o 

766,650 

505,235 

2 

1,528,370 

t,754,4o5 

2,009,520 

1,426,225 

1,807,525 

1,872,115 

3 

1,684,500 

5,324,445 

4,758,200 

6,620,860 

5,091.105 

7,763,950 

4 

19,037,235 

15.297,715 

21,156,725 

20,727,325 

23.509.575 

28,877,595 

5 

892,080 

737,475 
226,986,285 

737.525 

729,485 

948,325 

1,060,715 

6 

236,035,710 

198,397,180 

186,533,685 

160,045,465 

190,030,410 

7 

376,825 

3,768,670 

2,270,650 

4.471,985 

4,249,500 

2,968,330 

8 

8,795,220 

19-527,915 

16,349,125 

15,432,060 

15,084,445 

17,352,595 

9 

899,100 

1,973,150 

2,678,085 

2,825,610 

2,414.245 

2,510,275 

10 

33,719,765 

38,994,680 

31,829,770 

27,490,225 

24,018,965 

22,813,560 

11 

1,480,390 

2,450,020 

3,073,425 

2,448,160 

3,258,030 

1,834,840 

12 

757,140 

2,402,245 

650,865 

2,198,390 

1,382,385 
925,190 

3,402,380 

13 
14 

4,158,430 

2,667,155 

4,263,545 

'6,'ii4,84S 

3,378,415 

2,120,160 

15 

11,519,925 

13,090.935 

14,003,545 

12,077,715 

10,091,210 

7,826,750 

16 

298,255 

751,355 

429,605 

475,145 

597,040 

458,345 

'Z 

590,665 

1.335. 100 

2,900,470 

13,940,375 

9,785,115 

17,843,625 

18 

364,525 

395,005 

371,320 

409,245 

347,445 

405.540 

19 

7,115,955 

9,550,335 

8,886,830 

15,413,175 

10,231,155 

16,638,545 

20 

3,181,340 

3,935,405 

9,733.605 

2,749,915 

5.378,715 

4.357,275 

21 

2,548,865 

5,475.755 

7.023,385 

7,612,960 

6,257,945 

6.082,775 

22 

322,735 

1,368,755 

1,224,030 

198,755 

46,455 

23 

3, '56,375 

5,647,560 

7,339,010 

9,960,930 

9,585,500 

10,504,805 

24 

2,227,435 

1,780,520 

1,864,935 

1,630,970 

1,522,525 

1,820,270 

25 

1,777,035 

1,668,825 

1,231,815 

1,423,610 

1,207,840 

1,288,230 

26 

28,050,995 

32,644,040 

40,129,605 

35,535,670 

38,999,900 

31.715.855 

27 

30,270,440 

23.836,350 

7,912,605 

11.945.295 

6,077,800 

^•°96-f'° 

28 

1,062,650 

5,592,670 

7,310,430 

10,514,945 

8.136,575 

8,118,885 

29 

15,316,840 

16,113,760 

9,628,660 

9,663,085 

6.754.675 

5,404,470 

30 

191,700 

107,820 

94,220 

18,740 

133.480 

31 

326,470 

206,370 

206,835 

581,025 

562,735 

'  338.540 

32 

213,485 

352,630 

164,900 

264,260 

519.730 

642,320 

33 

27,431,340 

22,680,835 

23,239,545 

25.527.310 

22,322,685 

29,881,460 

34 

45,206,740 

51,248,370 

56,666,830 

59,910,520 

35.825.950 

63.433.380 

35 

14,914,190 

20,484,300 

9,509,180 

6,397,100 

6,271,955 

7,151,020 

36 

1509,343,995 

$543,831 ,455 

1503,599,420 

1508,126,335 

$429,851,295 

1505,414,945 

TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Schedule  Showing-  Imports  of  Food  Products  Retahied  for 
Compiled  fro}n  the  Official  Returns  of 


No. 

Articles. 

1836. 

1846. 

1856. 

i860. 

T 

Fruit,    ... 

96.245 

7,226,645 
839,090 

'^ 
610,900 

404,330 
3.555,445 
51,615,550 

16,781,010 
68,605 
121,440 

1,184,080 
680,180 
32,320 
220,645 
326,890 
215,890 
1.734.755 
57,311,830 

Ice                           .    . 

3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

lO 

II 

Rice,    cleaned    or     in     the 

husks,      

Sago  and  sago  flour,     .    .    . 
Spices— Cinnamon,   .... 
GinE^er 

1448,540 

$1,416,290 
270,240 

125,060 

'   115.885 

1,760,710 

35,017,220 

Pepper 

Unenumerated, 

Molasses,      

Sugar,  unrefined, 

Total, 

296,225 

185,430 

1,743,290 

26,652,735 

129,590,720 

fe8, 705,405 

168,184,110 

168,677,645 

Table 
Dutiable  Articles  Retained  for  Home  Consufnpliou 


No. 

Articles. 

1836. 

1846. 

.856. 

i860. 

Beer  and  ale 

#119,990 
1.930 

1 

Soap,  transparent,     .... 

4 

1203,740 

120,025 

, 

Cocoa, 

1.015,790 
5,516,090 

8 
9 

Cocoa,    husks    and    shells, 
ground,  manufactured,  . 

Coffee, 

Collodi, 

#256,625 
7,089,825 

1199,190 
12,490,295 

288,990 
3,929,480 

Ether 

1,364,690 

2,697,710 

6,619,775 

4.962,975 

y 

Naphtha,      

14 

880,315 
24,103,103 

4.633.410 
24,517,125 
7.712,305 

189.525 
13,908,160 

6,974,550 
31,282,945 
6,284,115 

643.975 
17,200,99s 

Tea?  . ::::::::: 

20,571,425 

Tfi 

17 

Tobacco,  manufactured  ci- 
gars, other  sorts,  includ- 

1,235,685 
2,613,240 

t8 

WineT   .    .    \ 

2,189,860 

Total,      

131,472,425 

144,219,538 

$62,002,510 

$74,123,390 

OBEAT  BRITAIN  FROM  18SG  TO  1893. 


No.   i6. 

Home  Consumption  by  the  United  Kingdom  fiotn  1836  to  iSgo. 

the  Board  of  Trade  of  Great  Britain. 


.865. 

1870. 

1875- 

1880. 

.885. 

1890. 

No. 

18,165,680 
173,890 
129.955 

1,931.495 
549.415 
17,125 
284,695 
320,400 
95,955 
2,037.815 
53,644,240 

$9,054,130 
406,020 
741.595 

5,673,990 
935.115 
387,630 
133,755 
775,405 
422,470 
1,787,670 
70,071,560 

1,803,800 

6,071,790 

1,209,230 

82,770 

514.190 

945.850 

466,720 

1,791,190 

83,157,895 

$17,456,010 

707,530 

2,037,695 

8,486,475 

1,358,560 

104,760 

386,965 

811,430 

1,228,410 

313,180 

90,417,600 

$20,309,880 
1,077,430 
1,445,230 

3,599,820 

820,760 

10,760 

780,860 

1,393,535 

295,545 

2,237,425 

65,874,685 

$26,138,590 

1,373,315 

6,079,440 

■    ■    '18,385 

316,155 

1.171,595 

913,400 

2,894,705 

47,355,225 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

I 

i 

167,350,665 

190,389,340   $112,945,790 

$123,308,615 

$97,845,930 

$86,260,810 

No.   17. 

by  the  United  Kingdom  for  same  years  as  above. 


$118,865 
1,310 


$117,4 


1159,905 
3,695 


148,820  154,560 

no  415 


219,935 
205 


$287,640 
10,150 

4,865 

249,905 

175 

20,625 


668,890   1,303,250 


•  ■•  I  .....  I   945,330 
6,756,765   5,032,505  I  9,114,680 


2,664,800 
8,013,420 


2,659,015 
4,405,595 


'$287,640 
10,150 

' 4.865 

250,465 


5.583.81 


10,501,780 


6,945,205 


5,314,625  13,927,645  I  11,734,445 
36,625,040  I  39.579,490  1  56,057,275 
11,062,700  I      6,436,205         6,356,760 


7,265,500 
44,049. 150 
7,691,330 


7,696,480 
42,076,075 
11,951,965 


10,480,600 

9,156.345 
40,887,830 
9.370,015 


2,014,625         1,656,155         4,809,8801        4,558,9101        5,184,180  I        5,749,950 
16,470,810      21,754,990  '<     29,929,015  \      29,254,605  i      22,926,925  I      26,374,465 


$85,150,630  $95,322,795  '$129,786,800  •  $110,915,650  :  ^109,101,520 1  $111,388,285 


^  Carried  forward  from  1885. 


TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Schedule  Showitig  the  Exports  of  Domestic  Productions  of  Textile  Fabrics 
Compiled  from  the  Board  of  Trade 


Cotton  Manufacture: 
Piece  goods,  white  or  plain, 
Printed,  checked  or  dyed,  . 

Of  mixed  materials 

Stockings  and  socks,     .    .    . 

Lace,  patent  net, 

Hosiery  and  small  wares,  . 
Thread  for  sewing,  .... 
Of  all  sorts, 


1100,169,9261  1126,306,158  $166,414,968  $162,481,950 

72,657,573;      80,839,045  100,696,901       96,697,461 

3,567,078  1,715-595 

1,226,9081  1,927,983, 

2,138,403:  2,471,4211 

1,226,908  4,384,718! 

3,823,9881  5.496,175! 


2,228,321 
1,320,8861 
1,915,628 
1,320,886, 
3,241,861} 
928,190 


Total  of  cotton  manufacture, 


Linen  Manufacture: 
Piece  goods,  white  or  plain, 
Checked,  printed  or  dyed,    . 

Sailcloth, 

Thread  for  sewing,      .... 


1183,783,271 


$19,164,431 
914,780 


,282,401 


2,326,223 
1,515,960 
4,068,033 
1,515,960 
5,972,836 
4,633,112 


1220,410,8891  $283,107,762!  $279,211,535 


$32,144,666'    $34,311,166     $31,118,290 
2,769,961]         2,231,278         1,668,211 


1,0423,53,         1,903,475 


14     Of  other  sorts, 


.863,535 


15         Total  linen  manufacture, 


Jute  Manufacture: 
16     Jute  manufacture,  .    .    . 


$22,985,099 


$650,450 


.S>7^  Manufacture: 


19 


ikerchiefs  and  shawls, 
Ribbon, 
.  Of  other  sorts. 

Total  silk  manufacture,     . 


$7,078,265 
$7,078,265 


Woolen  and  Worsted  Manufacture: 
(Cloths,  coatings,  etc.,  mixed  and) 
(      unmixed,  j 

21  Flannels 

22  Blankets 

23  Stuffs,  mixed  and  unmixed 

24  I  Carpets  and  druggets, 

25  '  Of  all  other  sorts 


$17,366,130 
5,447,055 


f  Total  woolen 
\      facture, 


id  worsted  manu- 


Total  textile  fabrics, 


31,693,663 
3.078,728 
3,163,993 


I  60,749,569 


$275,246,654 


2,913,191  2,293,< 


$39,731,292 


$40,214,165   $35,920,502 


$1,519,471     $2,540,365     14,265,361 


$2,623,893;    $2,773,551,    $3,603,525 
4,519,710      2,935,855:     4,085,810 

$5,709,406     $7,689,335 


$20,870,638   $23,986,563   $24,313,433 
6,868,183!      4,975,000;      5,347,640 


54,163,3411  64,191,383'  78,120,578 
4,222,891!  5,699.2501  7,514,080 
4.259.196      3,761.946      3.898,553 


$90,384,249 


I359.189.s04 


$102,614,142 


$119,194,28 


$435,185,840  $446,281 


GREAT  BBITAIN  FROM  ISSS  TO  ISaS. 


Exports. 

from  the  United  Kingdom,  in  Averages  of  Three  Years,  from  iS6o  to  i8g2. 


Returns  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

1872. 
1873- 
1874. 

1877. 

1878. 

1881. 
1882. 
1883. 

s 

1887. 

IS: 

.8,0. 

X. 

No. 

1173.095. 305 
107,573,616 
3,392.811 
1,995,195 
5.442,98s 
1.995,195 
7,433,233 
6,830,157 

$307-558,500 

$160,865,096 
97,690,208 
2,190,638 
1,857,055 
5.372,473 
1,857,055 
9.112.825 
5,210,357 

$155,296,466 
97,013,541 
2,119,291 
1,937,591 
7,597,843 
1,937,591 
9.706,596 
5,137,284 

$174,650,870;  $157,755,825 
105,120,521       92,391,786 
3,696,728              42,638 
2,746,908;        2,626,781 
13,016,398,       11,988,460 
8,617,680:        8,500,888 
11,804,221        12,383.590 

$165,599,568  $161,563,805 
93.901,351        97,354,460 
21,068               10,532 
2,133,4511         1.545,373 
10,164,006'       10,000,365 
11,264,336:       11,979,917 
14,754,450        15,187,492 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

$284,155,707 

$280,746,203  $319,653,326 

$285,689,968  $297,838,230,  $297,641,943 

9 

$32,205,003^    $24,779,491 
1,303.548,       2,320,325 
1,291,510;        1,105,690 
1,581,1001       1,675,023 
1,365,746        1,332,801 

[ 

$22,761,703'    $23,347,315 

1,082,970         1,015,978 

932,120            873,373 

1,679,513         1,661,335 

1,616,8961        1,859,558 

$19,013,885 

1,024,505 

899,036 

3^0361765 

i 

$19,042,650;    $17,418,608 

1,351,675!         1,592,923 

803,410             732,707 

1,786,238          1,622,040 

4,987,061!        5,147.498 

1 

10 

11 
12 
13 
14 

$37,746,907'    $31,213,330 

$28,073,202 

$28,757009 

$25,667,187 

$27,971,034     $26,513,777 

15 

$7,928,500'     $7,517,768 

|j,ooo,943'      $3,187,318 
7,117,203        5,536,410 

$9,679,261 

$4,353,740 
5,064,295 

$12,091,926 

$6,159,190 
6,646,316 

$10,286,133 

$6,116,726 
4,493,183 

$11,448,848 

$7,415,951 
5.080,408 

$12,871,403 

$4,432,802 
4,949,398 

16 

17 
18 

$10,118,146 

$8,723,728 

$9,418,035 

$12,805,506 

$10,609,9091  $12,496,359 

$9,382,200 

$53,460,673 
2,083,998 

2,690,19s 
22,837,897 

19 

$33,722,625 
5,854,510 

$33,115,698 
5,718,166 

$31,909,335 
4,622,416 

$37,688,225 
4,836,668 

$40,133,601   $49,379,016 
2,145,115      2,613,653 
2,506,246       2,707,300 

40,186,090,    33.883,361 

6,132,5681      6,346,326 

6,766,310!     8,257,885 

20 
21 
22 

78,451,028'      46,711,555 
8,325,081        4,866,025 
7,870,260,        5,598,565 

36,009,818 
4,628,661 
5.919,115 

37,095,728 
6,250,341 
6,150,478 

24 
25 

$134,223,5041    $96,010,009 

$83,089,345 

892,021,440 

$97,869,930  $103,187,541 

$94,619,550 

26 

$497,775,557!  $427,620,542 

$411,006,046 

$465,329,757 

$430,123,127,  $452,942,012 

$441,028,873 

TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Table  No.   19. 
Schedule  Showing  the  Exports  of  Domestic  Productions  of  Ma7iufacturers  of 

Averages  of  Three  Years 
Compiled  from  the  Board  of  Trade 


No 

i860. 

.863. 

list 

1S65. 

1866. 

1869. 
1870. 
1871. 

2 

4 
5 
6 

I 

Iron  and  Sieel: 
Iron  -  bar,  angle,  bolt  and  rod,     .    .    . 

Railroad  of  all  sorts,             

Iron  wire,     .    .           

Iron,  hoop,  sheets  and  boiler  plates,   . 
Iron,  tinned  plates,  .    .               .... 

Iron,   cast  or  wrought,  and  all  other 

manufactures, 

Steel,  unwrought,      ...        .... 

Manufactures  of  steel,  or  of  steel  and 

iron  combined, 

Total  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel, 

Hardivare  and  Cutlery: 
Hardware  and  cutlery 

Copper  Manufacture: 
Copper,  unwrought,  ingots,  cakes  or 

$10,865,183 
15,221,65s 
1,284,935 
5,473,035 
6,035,706 

13,806,828 
4,270,195 

1,799-765 

$12,226,533 

8,502,495 
6,756,695 

15,195,265 

4,346,735 

2,242,451 

111,597,385 
22,841,565 
2,112,091 
9,017,956 
10,082,450 

14,935,201 
5,333,121 

2,368,763 

$13,726,196 
40,132,235 
2,249,563 
11,426,643 
12,613,861 

16,800,866 
5.571.78s 

3,027,460 

9 

158,757,305 
116,769,408 

$68,326,870 ,  $78,288,532 

$105,548.^9 

10 

$17,802,945 1  $17,545,226 

$19,258,953 

II 

f3, 597. 006 
3,372,135 
6,526.380 

4!286;43o 
9,574,131 

$3,307,580 
6;598.'736 

$4,727,665 

12 
13 

Mixed  or  yellow  metal 

4,084,790 

Total  copper, 

14 

113,495,521 

14,079,856 
2,004,208 
1,158,191 

$17,645,574 

114,337,792 

115.188,353 

'A 

Miscellaneous  Metal: 
Fire-arms, 

2,716,213 
2,236,320 
1,494,640 

$2,735,965 
2,309,726 
2,298,495 

1,131,426 
1,297,558 

$3,504,573 
2,060,005 

17 

19 
20 

21 

Carriages  and  wagons,  railways,   .    .    . 
Implements  and  tools  of  industry,  .    . 
Instruments  and   apparatus,  surgical, 

903,385 
1,324,070 

1,332,208 
1,403.950 

2,370,486 
1,580,573 

22 
23 

24 

11 

Plate  and  plated  ware,      

Telegraph  wire 

893,080 
1. 3", 750 

979,210 
2,648,596 

531,185 

912,680           898,480 
1,140,595!       1,434,433 
1,180,361          1.076.  7A8 

983,571 
8,427.966 

Lead,  pig,  sheet  and  pipe, 

Zinc,  wrought  and  unwrought,     .    .    . 

Totsl  miscellaneous  metal,     .... 

Eartlien  and  Oiina  Ware: 
Earthen   and    chiua   ware,   including 
manufacture  of  clay 

Glass  Manufacture: 
Glass    plate,  rough  or  silvered,     .    .    . 

Glass-flint 

Glass-common  bottles 

Glass— of  other  sorts,       

Total  glass  manufacture, 

3,274.298 
522,583 

3,326,128 
793.800 

4,628,280 
774,003 

27 

115,833,531 

$16,213,848 

fi7.302,759 
|8,39i,o6s 

$29,436,094 

28 

16,235,701 
■  .4S6.7S8 

246,916 

7,081,821 

$8,842,390 

29 

30 
31 
32 

344,661 
1,562,450 

1,517,470 
352.715 

$457,303 

1,335,990 

1,791,181 

413.711 

$719,0.^3 

1,397.386 

1,642.163 

569,908 

33 

13,145,680             $3,777,296 

I3.998.185 

$4,328,490 

GEEAT  BRITAIN  FROM  1836  TO  1892. 


Exports. 

Metals,  Glass,  EartJmi  and  China    Ware,  from  the   United  Kingdom,  in 

from  iS6o  to  i8g2. 

Returns  of  the  United  Kingdom. 


1872. 
1873- 
1874. 

1877. 

1S78. 
1879. 
1880. 

18S3. 

iS 

1887. 

i|: 

No. 

117,405,575 
50,470,966 

3.558,851 

16,855,340 
19,124,708 

25,622,851 
6,908,855 

3.573.096 

$10,999,091 
21,703,411 
3,772,438 

14,816,803 

16,019,043 

20,049,285 
4,599.991 

3,836,583 

$9,197,876 
18,733,915 
3,259,375 
13,370,788 
17,830,403 

17,896,271 
4,744,763 

3,752,206 

$10,577,221 
30,113,215 
5,430,308 
18,747,283 
22,517,766 

21,884,646 
8,836,760 

4,062,481 

$8,226,415 
9.557,840 
3,233,713 
16,707,148 
23,188,671 

20,751,375 
6,081,016 

2,018,220 

$7,886,238 
24,363,321 
3,877,291 
19,157.736 
27,281,811 

24,065,320 
8,941,731 
2,697,608 

$7,115,637 
20,136,125 
5.033.695 
17,902,443 
31,430,580 

25,223,772 
8,958,392 

3.107,718 

2 

3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

1143,520,242 

$95,796,645 

$88,785,597 

$122,169,680 

»99, 764,398 

$118,271,056 

$118,908,362 

9 

124,052,361 

118,475,618 

$16,411,810 

$19,574,010 

$14,733,653 

$15,131,250 

$12,477,912 

10 

15,962,076 
4,979,036 
5.146,946 

R733.27I 
5.404.031 
5,246,451 

$5,547,808 
4.775,643 

5,531,353 

$5,467,755 
5,559.946 
6,205,828 

$4,646,423 
4,734,988 
6,035,716 

■  $7,435,500 
3,357,515 
4,159.990 

$11,092,343 
4,200,722 
4.945.593 

ir 
12 
13 

$16,088,058 

$15,383,753 

$15,854,804 

$17,233,529 

$15,417,127 

$14,953,005 

$20,238,658 

14 

12,285,751 
2,238,866 
3.130,920 
778,648 
1,616,865 
2,132,261 

$1,980,280 
1,916,561 
3,896,203 
758,903 
1.855.605 
2.059.363 

$1,446,895 
1,722,291 
3.125.553 
754.728 
1,007,211 
1.939.245 

1,102,330 
7.579,161 
1,736,121 
2,992,416 
567,706 

$1,670,981 
1,850,943 
3,804,046 
1,262,523 
3,232,410 
3,111,276 

1,616,293 
7,106,861 
2.102,013 
3,010,495 
571.676 

$1,801,476 
1,657,336 
5,149.481 
1,196,428 
5,396.235 
4,500,873 

1,188,656 
1,695,993 

i!894!84i 

2,468,355 

526,928 

$1,240,310 
1,500,606 
6,033,855 
757,041 
7,175,363 
5,238,343 

1,243.325 

'SSI 

1,989,505 
'563^650 

$1,274,320 
1,217,582 
5,866,563 
573,532 
9,383.575 
6,519.388 

1.478,432 
1,859.903 
6,576,903 

2,453.668 

3,672,198 

838,978 

it 
17 
iS 
19 
20 

71 

1,320,346 
8,128,903 
2,563,373 
4,162,775 

470,080 

5:3lSi8 

2,360,308 

4,237,660 

610,080 

23 
24 

2! 

$28,828,788 

$26,349,487 

$23,973,657 

$29,338,883 

$34,596,392^ 

$35,130,039 
$11,685,501 

$41,715,042 
$11,909,600 

27 

$10,349,603 

$9,138,395 

$9,432,820 

$11,409,758 

$1,250,365 

1.545,988 

1,750,518 

661,911 

$10,406,868 

28 

ll.313.473 

1,605,393 

2,164,470 

996.903 

$894,865 

1,412,640 

1,692,508 

732,053 

$721,673 

1,198,286 

1,581,331 

599,406 

$1,265,800 

1,401,073 

1,765,491 

548,230 

$1,277.7^ 

1.325,703 

2,100.821 

758,526 

$865,178 

1. 215.952 

1,941.812 

917,317 

29 
30 
31 
32 

$6,080,239 

$4,732,066 
$169,875,964 

$4,100,696 

$5,208,782 

$4.980,594 
$179,899,032 

$5,462,840 
$200,633,691 

$4,940,259 
$210,189,833 

33 

$228,919,291 

$158,559,384 

$204,934,642 

TABLES  SHOWINr,  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Table  No.  20. 


Schedule  Shoiving  the  Exports  of  Domestic  Productions  of  Miscellaneous  Manujac 

Co7npiled from  the  Board  of  Trade 


No. 

Articles. 

i860. 
1861. 
1862. 

1863 

184. 
1865. 

1866. 

I87I. 

Alkali                                 .    .            

1  4,093,118 
11,471,976 
1,649833 
2,259,010 
1,423.756 

'  1,039.881 
1,434,735 
1,284,856 

%   4,844,450 
i3.37S.996 
3.334.991 
2.391.170 

844.178 

1,406,530 
2,120.273 
1,429,660 

%   7,896,076 
12,318,146 
3,822,261 
3.160,771 
1.097.555 

1.492.695 
1,767.750 

.:■.:■. 

%  l^^l^lT^ 

12,175,118 

3 
4 
5 

5,iii,o6S 

Books,  printed, 

Candles   of  all  sorts       

3,377,260 
825,206 

6 

Caoutchouc,  manufacture  of, 

Cement, 

'  1,935'.  148 
1,750,141 

9 
10 

Furniture  and  cabinet  and  upholstery,    .    . 

1,232,486 

13 
14 

M 

Haberdashery  and  millinery, 

Hats  of  all  sorts 

Leather,  wrought,  boots  and  shoes,  .... 
Leather  of  other  sorts       

18,353-745 
1,615.771 

23,646,585 
2,318.593 
7,253.908 
2,699,383 

23,845,708 
2,458,891 
5,582,163 
2,552.685 

25,499.928 

2,845.815 
6,648,310 
3,599.610 

17 

18 
19 

21 

Oil  and  floor  cloth             

3,973928 
■  2,988,441 

Painters'  colors,      

Paper  other  than  hangings 

3,032,510 
2,247,77s 

3,140.663 
2,685.198 

4.623  51S 
3,000,875 

23 
24 
25 
26 

2^ 
29 

Salt, 

1,745.441 

1,396,311 

2,159,125 

2.133.460 

1,119,180 
1.846,240 
1,590,193 

;;^6^;6i 
1,710,848 

Soap, 

Stationery,  other  than  paper, 

1,181,323 
1,468,761 
1,860,283 

1,120.121 
2,530,751 

f  Wood  and  timber,  manufactured,  staves") 

i  Of  other  sorts^        '                                    j 

177,446,502 

$81,193,216 

190,635.473 



GREAT  BRITAIN  FROM  18S6  TO  1S9S. 


turcsfrom  the  United  Kingdom  in  Averages  of  Three  Years,  from  i860  to  i8g2. 
Returns  of  the  United  Kingdom. 


fi3,39o,o5i 
16,251,191 
8,816,968 
4.504.253 
1,051, 740j 
4.738,4701 
3.155,750 
1,873,406! 
1.798,6731 


111,199,940,    $10,637,903     $10,470,970 


14,969,086 
6,657,745 
4.493,220 
875,505 
3.995.S7O 
3,083,466 
1,446,938 

1.953,666 


15,995,763 
7,411,536 
4,696,208 
748,740 
3.831.435 
3,029,701 
1,493,806 
2,243,025! 


9.191,  . 
6,370,320 
5,740,611 
700,806, 
5.015. 1 10, 
4,139,1" 
1,998,836 
3,441,765; 


$9,722,461 
19,999.740, 
4,155.465 
5.717,933' 
1,025,311: 
4,Sii,ooi 
4, 240,  III 
1,985,046 
3,331,855 


?»,257,4. 

22,640,680 
3,732,638 
6,193.895 
1.017,611 
5,565,228 
5,632,375, 
2,180,931 
3,625,620 


$10,906,694 
25,056,198 
2,849,592 
6,671,483 
1,533,500 
6,134,168 
5.542,617! 
2,347.807 
2,956,725 


10 


32,297,573 
4,455,516 
7,962,393 
3,928,899 
1,075.516 
3.451.3601 
1.501.915I 
5.470.3731 
4,540,170 
883,1301 
3,307,696; 
3.571,663 
1,311, 19S 
1,375,131! 
3;37o,275 
5,469,830, 
1.769,738 


20,835,493 
5.256,183 
7,096,366 
3.754.634 
1,099,216 
3.386.363 
1,746,430 
5,806,788 
4.499.593; 
i,.So8,62i 


3,035.4911 
i,36o,.'>68 
1,648,855 
3.339,5231 
6,759.078: 
1,664,036 


18,871,696; 
5,008,105' 
6,515.408 
3.742.568,, 
938,780 
3.961.613, 
1,950,266 
5.548,748 
4,911,300, 
1,313.735 
2,764,460 
3.620,693 
3.139.2851 
2,130,280' 
3.395.726; 
5,503.601; 
2,026,755 


445,763: 
1,091,970; 
20,548,743' 
5,962,505 
8,312,965, 
4,497,663 
1,176,918' 
4,661,178 
2,662,518^ 
6,370,010, 
6,388,081 
1,432.963 
2,999,270 
4,003,496 
3,970,433 
2,176,533 
4,271.451 
5,886,045; 
2,470,110 

2,152,231! 


5io,4b5 
1,203.260 
12,092,180' 
5.582,928: 
7,921,628 
3,463.585 
1,157,176 
4,250,203 
3,225,640 
6,304,785 
6,930,855 
1,443,383 
3,119,876! 
2,434,396, 
2,562,085 
2,444,651 
4,257,273 
4,133,675 
2,693,801 

1,990,623 


1141,322,878  $124,262,781  $125,397,796  $148,550,013!  $132,711,412  $139,918,242  $146,997,755 


781,068 
1,263,433 
11,535,553' 
6,197,710 
8,896,650 
4,330,578 

974,761! 
4,621,086 
3.751.363 
7.257.420 
7,683.091 
1.339.056 
2.582,1481 
2,355.155 
2,455,575 
2,396,846 
4,508,886 
2,648,283; 
3,137,986 

2,375,178 


866,702'  II 

1,338,857,  12 

9,784,720'  13 

6,272,168,  14 

9,179,062!  15 

3,600,234  16 

1,011,363  17 

5,211,743  18 

3,883,862  19 

7,866,582  20 

7,508,987  21 

1,624,828  22 

2,9.%, 568  23 

2,703,530  24 

1  570,702  25 

2,891,688  26 

4,585,400  27 

2,852,678,  28 

2,966,7251  29 

2,367,238,  30 


TABLES  SHOWING  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF 


Table  No.  21. 

Schedule  Showhig  the  Exports  of  Domestic  Productiojis  of  Partly  Manufactured 

Years,  from 

Compiled  from  the  Board  of  Trade 

1S63.  I 
1864.  ' 
1865. 


Bleaching  and  Raw  Materials: 

Bleaching  materials, 

Chemical  products  and  dye  stuffs,    .    . 

Clay,  unmanufactured 

Coal,  including  cinders  and  fuel,  .    .    . 
Products  of  coal  (except  dyes),     .    .    . 

Cotton  yarn, 

Leather, 

Linen  yarn 

Jute  yarn,  

Macliiner_v,  steam  engines 

Of  other  sorts, 

Metals:  Iron,  old,  for  re-manufacture, 
Metals:  Iron,  pig  and  puddled,     .    .    . 

Metals:  Tin,  unwrought,        

Oil  seed, 

Rag,  and  other  materials  for  paper,     . 
Silk,  thrown  and  twisted  and  yarn. 
Yarn,   alpaca  and  mohair,  and  other 

sorts  unenumerated, 

Wool,  sheep's  and  lambs', 

Wool,  flocks  and  ragwool, 

Wool,  foreign,  dressed  in  the  United 

Kingdom 

Wool  noils 


1868! 


{3,656,303       {3,124,763 
18,037,536  I     20, 


42,276,460 
1,950,665 
8,793,231 
453,195 
6,868,955 

13,371,318 
252,018 
5,370,016 
1,963,500 
5.323,553 


45,815,1731 
2,053,1461 

13,429,490  I 

585,436  I 

8,617,810 

15,447,585 
140,223 
7,166,351  t 
2,479,673 
6,348,885 


$4,876,170      16,601,368 
930  1     26,908,941  I     28,416,953 
72, 


5,786 

'619^628 
9,185,778 
14,909,356 
1,058,220 
7,950,540 
1,905,355 
6,343.116 


4,734,836  I       4,054,183 


Wool  waste, 

Wool,  combed  or  carded,  and  tops, 
Woolen  and  worsted  yarn,      .    .    .    . 


4,627,916         3,772,343 


17,610,551  ,     25,273,493 


,354,651 


73,046,313 
4,588,165 

11,312,848 

975,355 

9,855.510 

17,441,550 
2,769,351 

12,522,543 
3,310,010 
6,838,031 


5,957,021 


27,482,5951     27,722,123 


Total, {135,290,053  '{159.091,484  {196,020,115  |f2i5,243,o2i 

Table  No.  22. 

Schedtde  Showing  the  Exports  of  Miscellajteous  Domestic  Products  from 

Compiled  from  the  Board  of  Trade 


No. 

i860. 
1861. 
1862. 

.set 

1866. 

I 

Food  Products: 
Animals  and  horses 

11,184,670 
8,125,005 

&,  143.538 
9.414.751 

{908,818 
9.729,310 

11,107,425 
9,380,203 

3 

4 

I 

2,464,630 

629,018 

1,745.350 

JC^;ii6 
2,799,671 

251,515 

62,831 

1,345.596 

2,524,353 

'■^6l?;?^8 

883,970 

88,278 

1,868,226 

3,157,783 

527,211 

Corn:  Wheat 

7 
8 

Corn:  Other  kinds, 

2,495,8^6 

9 

Fish  and  herrings 

3,690,428 

1 . . . 

12 
13 
14 
15 

Pickles,  vinegar  and  sauce 

Provisions  not  otherwise  described,     . 

as?^ 

3,085',  141 

2,137,033 
2,983.086 

'd^X 

Spirits, 

Total ,.    . 

2,128,225 

2,001,183 

804,875 

989,690 

124,538.669 

{24,382,705 

{24,720,927 

131,602,579^ 

GREAT  BRITAIN  FROM  1SS6  TO 


Exports. 

Articles,  Machinery  and  Coal,  from  the  United  Kingdom,  in  Averages  of  Three 

i860  to  i8g2. 

Returns  of  the  United  Kifigdom. 


iS-' 

i877- 

1878, 

J881. 

1884. 

.887. 

1890. 

■S73. 
1874. 

;ii?; 

1S82 
1883. 

Isi: 

1S89. 

1S91. 

Wo. 

11,823,271 

11,671,156 

$1,722,125 

11,964.845 

$2,785,675 

$2,952,758 

$2,711,900 

I 

9,602,468 

10,092,686 

10,523,388 

11,511,156 

10,024,396 

12,279,578 

14,677,697 

2 

971.540 
48,327,475 

948,305 
52,202,698 

1,194,915 
60,495,466 

1,448,273    3 
91,210,175    4 

59.359.085 

44,011.728 

38,183,676 

1,960,705 

2.351,955 

2,386,111 

3.941.453 

4,247.568 

4.571,391 

7,194,773    5 

78.517,151 

63,579.245 

61,709,900 

65,899,166 

61,942,935 

57,914,271 

55,353,343       6 

5,982,088 

6,453,518 

6,395.615 

7,579,018 

7,902,003 

6,748,600 

6,662,832       7 

9,706,885 

7,661,543 

5,445.516 

5.255,150 

5,095,833 

4,460,681 

4,425.935       8 

1,189,240 

1,024,020 

1,325,841 

1,436,446 

1.516,460 

1,690,455       9 

14,630,496 

10,982,190 

12,320,815 

18,367,110 

18,193,551 

16,786,573 

19,307,577     10 

32,056,095 

27,337.711 

27,746,985 

40,508,786 

38,968,401 

48,828,485 

57,551,643     II 

2,i6S,6o8 

499.336 

3,483.913 

2,222,005 

1,455,578 

2,761,518 

1,97^,680     12 

29,173,916 

14,701,675 

18,065,350 

21,907,361 

12,154,226 

13,219,271 

12,798,133     13 

4,079,816 

2,196,158 

2,101,301 

2,606,853 

2,256,121 

2,937,316 

2,564,883     14 

7,565.510 

■9,228,705 

8,247,688 

7,922,323 

7,671,845 

7,753,586 

7,262,595     15 

1,963,858 

1,659,118 

2,381,185 

2,654,775 

2,279,960 

2,311,733 

1,936,137     16 

7,657.971 

3,239.320 

4,232,781 

2,376,351 

2,229,351 

2,194,825 

17 

4,265,591 

6,287,600 

5,373,936 

5,877,588 

18 

3,617,563 

3,986,176 

4,460,356 

4,668,848 

4,487,501 

4.839.336 

3,653,127 

19 

2,331,671 

1,589,205 

2,069,845 

1,841,893 

•     .     • 

1,316,213 

2,829,496 

5,328,268 

21 

3,276,850 

22 



584,275 
2,852,322 

23 
24 

28,436,985 

21,876,673 

18,278,820 

16,484,715 

21,140,248 

20,605,183 

20,094,812 

25 

$299,491,711 

5233,627,361  :|227,7i6,o85  ;|276,264,67o 

$268,275,942 

^287,222, 189 

$335,025,978 

Exports. 

the  United  Kifigdom,  iti  Averages  of  Three  Years,  from  i860  to  i8g2. 

Returtis  of  the  United  Kingdom. 


1872 

1875. 

1878. 

1881. 

1884. 

1887. 

,890. 

1873. 

.8?6. 

1879. 

1882. 

Jill: 

1891. 

No. 

1874- 

1889. 

1892. 

$938,045 

$1,042,831 

$1,351,940 

$1,997,023 
9,027,818 

$1,978,943 

$3,967,196 

12,960,628 

11,549,141 

9,865.071 

8,749,213 

8,116,801 

8,736,123 

8,701,565 

2 

1.655,680 

1.957,983 

2,522,450 

3.096,631 

2,673,225 

2,803,803 

3,095,650 

3 

1.384,143 

1.164,588 

1,133,868 

1,061,821 

905,398 

747,070 

575,977 

4 

408,346 

380,118 

286,305 

292,483 

273,030 

261,138 

232,027 

5 

2,218,203 

720,981 

1,776,223 

608,358 

147,551 

170,493 

281,360 

b 

272,433 

109,411 

250,505 

337,858 

316,335 

487,956 

607,113 

7 

1.514,353 

1,654,723 

1,480,496 

1,762,861 

1,335,283 

1,249,085 

5.225.656 

4,575.710 

5,690,321 

6,715.448 

7,386,776 

5,649,315 

6.243.853 

9 

1,774.485 

1,882,060 

2,269,978 

2,841,847     10 

3,324,123 

4,205,865 

5,097,618 

10,041,160 

9,071,995 

9,233,540 

10,536,390     II 

3,039.528 

3.093.743 

3.323,971 

.5,646,460 

6,429,918 

6,469,870 

6,800,467      12 

3,792,480 

3,635,146 

4,723,298 

4,914,521 

4,455,996 

4,824,053 
1,049,418 

4,292,280     13 

1,406,931 

1,023,178 

1.265,945     14 

982,696 

1,610,618 

2,318,700 

3,931,263 

4,307,476 

5,676,671 

6,564,768 

15 

$36,314,827 

$34,016,788 

J_37,704,90l 

_$52,6i5,i2i 

J50,303,965 

$53,6i5,709_ 

156,289,007 



PART  V. 

PROTECTION  TO    NATIVE    INDUSTRIES   IN    THE 
CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Protection  in  the  German  Empire. 

One  thing  is  clear,  that,  through  the  widely  open  doors  of  its  import  trade 
the  German  market  has  become  the  mere  storage-space  for  the  over-production  of 
other  countries.  We  must,  therefore,  shut  our  gates  and  take  care  that  the 
German  market,  which  is  now  being  monopolized  by  foreign  wares,  shall  be 
reserved  for  native  industry.  Countries  which  are  euclosed  have  become  great, 
and  those  which  have  remained  open  have  fallen  behind.  Were  the  perils  of  pro- 
tectionism really  so  great  as  sometimes  painted,  France  would  long  ago  have  been 
ruined,  instead  of  which  she  was  more  prosperous  after  paying  the  five  milliards 
than  Germany  is  to-day.  And  protectionist  Russia,  too — look  at  her  marvelous 
prosperity!  .  .  .  The  question  before  us  is  not  a  political,  but  a  financial  one, 
and  we  should  put  all  personal  sensibility  aside. — Prince  Bismarck,  speech  hefoir 
llie  Reichstag,  May  z,  iSy^. 

The  German  Empire  was  organized  in  1871,  by  a  political  union  of 
Prussia  and  the  German  States  of  Central  Europe.  By  the  census  of  1890 
it  had  a  population  of  49,428,470.  The  area  of  the  Empire  is  212,000 
square  miles.  It  is  larger  than  all  of  New  England,  New  York,  Peiuisyl- 
vania.  New  Jersej^  and  Ohio  combined. 

"Germany,"  says  Frederick  List,  "owes  her  first  progress  in  manu- 
factures to  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  and  to  the  numerous 
refugees  who  brought  with  them  the  manufactures  of  woolens,  silks,  glass, 
china,  gloves,  jewelry  and  many  other  articles."  The  Protestant 
refugees  who  were  driven  out  of  France  and  Belgium  by  the  religious 
pensecutions  of  Louis  XIV.  and  the  King  of  Spain,  fled  not  only  to 
England  but  to  various  parts  of  the  Continent.  In  Prussia  they  were 
welcomed  by  the  government,  and  encouraged  to  set  up  their  industries 
and  given  the  patronage  and  support  of  the  king.  It  was  not  alone 
their  coming  but  the  conditions  luider  which  they  remained  that  made 
the  settlement  of  these  refugee  artisans  an  important  event  in  the  com- 
mercial history  of  these  countries. 

(404) 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GEE3IAN  EMPIRE. 


The  foundations  for  the  present  economic  polic)'  of  the  German  Em- 
pire were  laid  by  Frederick  the  Great,  King  of  Prussia,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  From  1746  to  1786  Prussia  was  raised  by  the 
military  genius  and  statesmanship  of  this  great  ruler,  to  one  of  the  first 
places  among  the  nations  of  the  time.  The  economic  policy  pursued  by 
Frederick  the  Great,  embraced  all  the  features  of  the  mercantile  system, 
duties  were  levied  on  imports,  premiums  and  bounties  were  given  to 
encourage  exports  and  special  privileges  were  granted  to  individuals  to 
encourage  and  promote  manufacturing.  After  his  wars  of  conquest  were 
brought  to  a  close,  he  turned  his  attention  to  the  improvement  of  indus- 
tries and  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  rural  population.  The 
landed  proprietors,  and  especially  those  of  Silesia,  who  had  been  ruined 
by  the  wars,  were  given  assistance  in  the  way  of  loans  from  a  bank  estab- 
lished in  1769,  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  provide  themselves  with 
agricultural  implements,  purchase  stock  and  repair  their  lost  fortunes. 
"The  success  of  this  bank,"  says  Mr.  Macgregor,  "having  surpassed 
all  calculations,  the  inhabitants  of  other  provinces  solicited  and  obtained 
similar  institutions  of  credit  to  that  of  Silesia." 

Banks  were  also  established  for  Brandenburg,  Pomerania,  Western 
Prussia,  Eastern  Prussia  and  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Posen.  To  encourage 
industry,  develop  the  resources  of  the  country  and  direct  the  labor  of  his 
people  into  various  new  and  profitable  occupations,  were  the  chief  pur- 
poses Frederick  had  in  view.  His  economic  policy  differed  from  that 
which  generally  prevailed  throughout  Germany  and  in  many  parts  of 
Europe,  in  that  the  import  duties  and  taxes  were  not  imposed  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue  so  much  as  to  foster  and  encourage  industry. 

Another  writer  gives  the  following  description  of  the  economic  policy 
advocated  and  practiced  by  Prussian  sovereigns: 

From  the  earliest  times  the  electors  of  Brandenburg  devoted  especial  attention 
to  the  economic  welfare  of  their  people.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  great 
elector  whose  wise  policy  in  offering  an  asylum  to  the  Huguenots  greatly  promoted 
industrial  prosperity.  Frederick  the  Great  was  another  German  sovereign  who 
bestowed  much  care  on  the  economic  condition  of  his  subjects.  By  all  available 
means  he  promoted  agriculture  and  fostered  trade  with  most  successful  results. 

It  was  ju.st  as  the  benefits  of  this  policy  began  to  appear  in  the 
improved  and  thriving  condition  of  the  Prussians  that  all  Europe  became 
involved  in  the  Napoleonic  wars,  which  continued  until  18 15.  It  can 
scarcely  be  said  that  the  policy  pursued  by  the  German  States  is  worthy 
to  be  called  an  economic  policy.  The  numerous  small  States  con- 
trolled by  despotic  forms  of  government  perpetuating  the  system  of  feud- 
alism, maintaining  their  royal  household  at  a  great  expense,  living  in 
constant  jealousy  and  perpetual  strife,  subjected  trade  and  commerce  to 
a  system  of  taxation  through  tolls  and  duties,  which  having  for  its  purpose 
more  the  raising  of  revenue  for  the  royal  treasuries  than  the  encouragement 


mOTECriON  IK  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


of  industry,  gave  little  opportunit)-  to  iniprovenieiit  in  industrial 
pursuits;  although  in  certain  localities,  such  as  in  the  kingdom  of  Sax- 
ony, owiug  to  the  settlement  of  the  Huguenots,  manufacturing  had  gained 
a  foothold  and  made  considerable  progress.  Yet,  in  the  main,  the  Ger- 
man States,  up  to  the  Napoleonic  wars,  were  almost  exclusively  agricul- 
tural regions.  Beyond  that  system  of  domestic  production  carried  on  in 
the  households,  and  the  occupations  of  smiths  and  mechanics,  and  small 
seats  of  manufacturing,  the  fabrication  of  cloth  and  working  of  metals, 
were  carried  on  to  only  a  small  extent. 

The  effect  of  the  Napoleonic  wars  on  the  industrial  and  commercial 
life  of  the  German  States  and  Prussia  was  most  ruinous.  Lying  between 
France,  Austria  and  the  Russian  frontier,  they  became  the  battle-ground 
during  this  great  struggle,  for  the  contending  hosts  of  Napoleon,  Russia 
and  Austria.  Through  the  Continental  policy  of  Napoleon  their  markets 
were  open  to  the  competition  of  French  goods,  while  they  were  compelled 
to  pay  tribute  to  the  support  of  French  armies  and  subjected  to  the  most 
oppressive  and  burdensome  taxation.  Mr.  Yeats,  after  speaking  of  the 
industrial  depression  during  these  wars,  points  out  that  on  the  final 
overthrow  of  Napoleon  a  busy  traffic  at  once  began,  but  the  German  pro 
ducer  was  seriously  impeded  by  the  presence  of  strong  rivals  in  his 
former  markets. 

British  manufactures,  which  had  improved  in  quality  and  diminished  in  cost, 
were  the  chief  source  of  alarm  to  the  forced  manufactures  of  Germany.  English 
cotton  goods,  in  particular,  gave  no  chance  to  those  of  the  Germans,  but  the  Ger- 
man woolens  were  of  such  good  quality  that  they  were  better  able  to  withstand 
competition.  Manufactures  of  metals  were  wholly  unable  to  hold  their  own  against 
the  influx  of  hardware  and  metals  from  England  and  Belgium. 

In  the  war  Prussia  had  been  the  chief  sufferer,  and  after  the  peace  her  industry 
was  benefited  more  than  that  of  any  other  State.  There  had  been  no  embargo 
under  the  French  rule  upon  inland  intercourse,  and  France,  commanding  the  trade 
of  every  state,  had  suffered  comparatively  little;  the  embargo  was  solely  upon  the 
ports.  The  problem  for  statesmen  at  this  juncture  was  what  policy  to  pursue  to 
keep  up  the  prosperity  of  their  respective  countries  in  the  presence  of  industries 
sinking  and  dying,  through  the  superior  facilities  of  production  enjoyed  by 
England. ' 

Henry  C.  Carey  (in  a  passage  already  quoted),  speaks  of  the  Con- 
tinental system  of  Napoleon  as  marking  "the  commencement  of  the  for- 
ward progress  of  every  kind  of  manufacture  in  Germany. ' '  The  exclusion 
of  British  competition  at  the  cljoseof  the  war,  taking  into  consideration  her 
pre-eminence  in  manufacturing  and  her  ability  to  destroy  rival  industries 
on  the  Continent,  was  made  necessary  in  order  that  the  home  trade  of  the 
German  States  might  be  preser\'ed  and  that  their  indu.stries  might  live. 
Mr.  Yeats  confirms  the  view  taken  by  protectionist  writers,  of  the  effect  of 
British  competition  on  the  indu-stries  of  the  country  at  the  close  of  the 

'  Receut  and  Existing  Commerce,  pp.  216,  217,  21S. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


war.  He  concedes  that  the  produce  of  Germauj'  had  been  superseded  by 
foreign-made  wares  and  that  they  had  been  driven  not  only  out  of  their 
home  trade,  but  out  of  foreign  trade  as  well.  Their  business  relations 
had  been  broken  up.  Although  he  suggests  that  notwithstanding  that 
England  had  monopolized  and  taken  possession  of  their  home  market  and 
driven  them  out  of  every  quarter  where  they  had  hitherto  traded,  yet  that 
Cuba,  Hayti,  Brazil  and  the  Spanish  Republics  of  South  America  were 
left  open  to  them ;  that  is,  they  had  been  robbed  of  their  own  market,  the 
best  which  they  could  possess,  and  were  now  offered  the  markets  named. 
This  will  remind  the  reader  of  the  encouragement  which  free  traders 
to-day  are  giving  American  manufacturers  in  capturing  the  market  of 
Africa,  after  surrendering  the  markets  of  the  United  States  to  British 
manufacturers. 

This  was  the  situation  which  confronted  Prussia  and  the  German 
States  after  the  battle  of  Waterloo.  The  superior  machinery,  abundant 
capital  and  vast  wealth. of  England  had  given  her  such  pre-eminence  and 
such  advantages  in  production,  that  every  effort  at  building  up  rival  indus- 
tries in  Central  Europe  under  free  competition  could  be  suppressed.  The>- 
must  either  consent  to  confine  themselves  to  rural  pursuits  and  the  pro- 
duction of  a  few  raw  materials  and  remain  poor,  or  resort  to  the  only 
measure  through  which  such  competition  could  be  resisted  and  the  life  of 
their  own  industries  preserved.  Free  trade  would  not  only  keep  them 
poor  in  industries,  but  would  constantly  drain  their  country  of  precious 
metals  and  prevent  that  accumulation  of  wealth  through  which  the  devas- 
tation of  the  war  could  be  repaired  and  their  political  and  commercial 
greatness  secured. 

"The  balance  of  trade,"  says  Yeats,  "against  Germany  during  the  French 
revolutionary  period  was  considerable.  From  England  alone  the  imports  of  the 
year  1795-97  were  at  the  mean  rate  of  ^^7, 000,000  sterling  against  ^4,250,000  of 
exports.  A  disparity  of  this  kind  would  be  rectified  by  the  outflow  of  specie 
Germany,  not  being  a  gold-producing  country,  would  have  been  rapidly  impover 
ished  by  such  a  circumstance,  and  trade  would  have  tended  to  balance  itself  by  a 
diminution  of  imports. ' ' 

Burdened  with  debt,  distracted  and  impoverished  by  the  long  and 
disastrous  struggle  which  had  just  closed,  Prussia  and  the  German  States 
entered  immediately  upon  the  work  of  repairing  their  lost  fortunes,  and 
advancing  their  commercial  and  industrial  interests.  This  could  not  be 
accomplished  with  open  ports.  Their  industries  could  not  make  headway 
against  that  inundation  of  foreign  wares  which  was  taking  place.  The 
vast  quantities  of  goods  which  were  so  suddenly  thrust  upon  them  at  the 
close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  proved  the  superior  advantages  possessed  by 
England  through  her  new  inventions  and  machinery,  and  the  inefiiciency 
of  moderate  duties  to  shield  the  industries  of  the  country  from  attack  under 
the  new  conditions.    So  long  as  the  system  of  hand- workmanship  prevailed 


PBOTECTION  IN  COXTINf.NTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


alike  in  England  and  on  the  Continent,  the  cost  of  transportation  was  so 
great,  especially  from  England  to  the  interior  of  Europe,  by  rivers  and 
overland  carriage,  that  a  degree  of  natural  protection  was  thus  afforded, 
which  with  low  import  duties  would  give  adequate  protection  in  the  home 
market.  Another  phase  of  production  as  then  carried  on  in  England, 
made  protection  more  necessary.  The  factory  system  had  been  intro- 
duced, larger  establishments  were  carried  on,  supported  by  vast  capital 
and  facilities  for  the  making  and  accumulation  of  large  stocks  of  goods, 
hich  could  be  used  as  a  weapon  of  commercial  warfare  by  being  in  vast 
quantities  suddenly  offered  for  sale  at  low  prices  in  competition  with  home 
producers,  for  the  purpose  of  working  the  ruin  of  manufacturers,  dis- 
couraging capitalists  from  entering  the  field  as  competing  producers,  and 
thus  checking  the  growth  of  industries  in  all  places  which  could  be 
reached  by  British  wares.  The  competition  waged  by  English  manu- 
facturers did  not  stop  with  the  efforts  exerted  by  single  concerns  in  this 
direction,  but  combinations  were  effected  among  all  of  the  manufacturers 
in  a  particular  line  of  production,  who  by  concerted  action  made  the  sup- 
pression of  rival  industries  a  part  of  their  commercial  policy.  As  has 
already  been  pointed  out  upon  the  adoption  of  the  first  tariff  law  in  the 
United  States,  in  1792,  the  merchants  of  Manchester  contributed  $250,- 
000  to  be  invested  in  goods,  to  be  sold  in  the  markets  of  the  United 
States  at  low  prices,  or  to  be  given  awaj-,  if  necessary,  in  order  to  dis- 
courage the  investment  of  capital  in  manufacturing.  It  is  this  species  of 
commercial  warfare,  engaged  in  by  powerful  producers  which  has  made 
a  system  of  protective  tariffs  an  essential  part  of  the  economic  policy  of 
all  well-regulated  States  where  its  producers  from  any  cause  are  attempt- 
ing to  carry  on  manufacturing  under  disadvantages.  With  these  economic 
conditions  prevailing  and  the  ruin  and  suppression  of  their  indu.stries 
actually  being  effected,  Prussia  and  the  other  German  States  were  at  once 
driven  to  adopt  methods  for  the  protection  of  their  own  people.  The  effort 
on  the  part  of  certain  free  trade  writers  to  show  that  the  regulations  resorted 
to,  the  custom  barriers  put  up,  and  even  the  commercial  union  effected 
between  Prussia  and  the  German  States,  were  brought  about  by  political 
rather  than  commercial  reasons,  is  futile.  Prussia  took  the  lead  in 
1818  by  adopting  a  vigorous  policy  of  protection.  The  purpose  of  such 
legislation  is  definitely  stated  in  the  tariff  law  of  May  26,  1S18,  as  follows ; 
•  "The  duties  shall,  by  an  expedient  taxation  of  foreign  trade  and  of 
consumption  of  foreign  goods,  afford  protection  to  home  industry,  and 
secure  to  the  State  the  revenue  which  trade  and  luxury  can  yield  without 
obstructing  commerce." 

The  principles  involved  in  this  legi.slation  were  more  in  harmony 
with  the  modern  ideas  of  protection  than  the  methods  resorted  to  by 
Frederick  the  Great  and  the  old  Prussian  sovereigns.  State  monopolies 
were  abandoned,  with   the  exception  of  salt   and  playing  cards.     The 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 

conferring  of  special  privileges  upon  individuals  was  discontiniied,  and 
prohibitions  to  sustain  such  monopolies  ceased.  The  equal  right  was 
accorded  to  every  citizen  to  engage  in  industries.  The  policy  of  admitting 
raw  materials  free  which  had  been  practiced  by  Frederick  the  Great,  was 
continued.  Small  duties  were  levied  on  partly  manufactured  articles  and 
adequate  protection  was  extended  to  finished  products.  By  the  edict  of 
November  2,  18 10,  the  right  was  conferred  upon  every  citizen  to  exercise 
his  free  choice  of  an  occupation.  The  interference  of  the  State  in  the 
control  of  industries  and  the  direction  of  the  labor  and  energy  of  citizens 
was  abandoned. 

The  repudiation  of  many  of  the  old  practices  of  the  mercantile  system 
by  the  Prussians  in  1818,  and  by  theZoUverein  later,  is  frequently  referred 
to  by  certain  economic  writers  as  a  tendency  toward  free  trade  and  an 
indication  of  the  growth  of  a  free  trade  sentiment  in  Germany;  when  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  old  practice  of  imposing  duties  on  exports,  of  grant- 
ing special  monopolies  to  individuals,  etc.,  has  never  been  favored  by 
economists  and  .statesmen  of  the  protectionist  school.  Instead  of  measur- 
ing the  economic  thought  of  the  time  by  the  legislation  which  was  actually 
effected,  the  free  trader  judges  of  it  by  the  abandonment  of  certain  prac- 
tices which  have  been  no  more  condemned  by  free  traders  than  by  protec- 
tionists. As  will  be  shown  later,  the  fiscal  policy  pursued  by  nations 
prior  to  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  although  it  embodied 
many  of  the  essential  principles  of  protection,  contained  certain  features 
which  were  subsequently  considered  objectionable.  These  were  the 
means  resorted  to  for  raising  revenues,  the  retaliations  against  other 
States,  and  the  granting  of  monopolies  all  of  which  were  abandoned 
by  the  protectionist  party,  only  those  features  being  preserved  which 
were  proven  by  experience  to  have  been  wise  and  beneficial  to  the 
people.  That  there  was  a  marked  improvement  in  the  economic  thought 
of  Germany,  Prussia,  and  all  commercial  nations  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  centuries 
is  unquestioned.  But  it  was  a  tendency  toward  the  distinctive  features 
of  the  policy  of  protection,  or  the  "American  System,"  as  it  is  now 
called,  rather  than  toward  free  trade.  The  protection  of  home  industries 
and  a  preser\^ation  of  the  home  market  for  home  producers,  was  the 
essential  purpose  in  view.  Before  the  Napoleonic  wars  a  translation  of 
Smith's  "Wealth  of  Nations,"  by  Christian  Garve,  was  placed  in  all  the 
public  libraries  and  in  the  hands  of  the  educated  classes.  The  teachings 
of  Adam  Smith  exerted  an  influence  in  modifying  some  of  the  old  notions 
of  the  mercantile  system  as  practiced  by  the  Great  Elector.  These  modi- 
fications and  a  conformity  to  sound  protectionist  principles,  were  dis- 
tinctive features  of  the  law  of  18 18.  There  is  so  much  in  the  "Wealth  of 
Nations"  approving  the  idea  of  the  advantages  of  home  trade  over  foreign 
trade,  and  the  benefits  of  domestic  industries,  that  an  out  and  out  free 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


trade  sentiment  could  not  become  fixed  even  in  the  minds  of  all  those  who 
read  and  became  disciples  of  Adam  Smith.  The  efforts  of  Kraiis,  Pro- 
fessor of  Political  Economy  at  the  Universitj^  of  Konigsberg,  to  form  a 
free  trade  party  failed,  although  his  writings  were  instrumental  in  expos- 
ing many  of  the  errors  of  the  old  policy. 

The  advantage  of  specifi>c  over  ad  valorem  duties  is  nowhere  better 
illustrated  than  in  the  expression  of  Julius  Faucher,  a  disciple  of  Cobden, 
who,  in  discussing  the  features  of  the  Prussian  tariff  of  1818,  said: 

"It  was  hoped  (by  free  traders)  that  the  maximum  rate  of  10  per 
cent  ad  valorem  would  not  leave  a  sufficient  margin  for  protection  to  breed 
unhealthy  branches  of  industry  in  the  country.'" 

It,  however,  did  not  meet  the  expectations  of  those  free  traders  who 
aided  in  arranging  the  schedules,  and  as  they  supposed  had  got  the  rate 
of  duty  down  so  low  that  imports  would  thereby  be  encouraged,  and 
protection  defeated.     He  said  further: 

The  Prussian  tariff  legislation  of  1819  would  have  been  quite  adapted  to  form 
the  nucleus  of  a  general  European  tariff  reform,  had  it  not  been  for  an  uninten- 
tional consequence  of  the  otherwise  excellent  method  adopted  in  iixing  the  posi- 
tions of  the  tariff.  They  had,  namely,  been  fixed  exclusively  by  measure,  number  or 
weiglit,  and  not  ad  valorem,  which  definition  ivas  applied  to  the  maximum  rate,  but 
nowhere  else.^ 

So  it  appears 'that  as  early  as  this,  when  the  Prussian  Chancellor, 
Prince  Hardenburg,  was  attempting  to  build  up  the  industries  of  his 
country  and  restore  its  prosperity,  that  this  end  would  have  been  defeated 
had  the  duties  been  made  ad  valorem,  instead  of  specific  as  they  were. 

The  policy  resorted  to  by  the  German  States  is  described  by  Mr. 
Dawson,  as  follows: 

The  country  being  divided  into  a  great  number  of  States,  each  with  its  own 
laws  and  customs,  national  action  in  the  domain  of  economics  was  impossible. 
What  actually  existed  was  a  system  of  mutual  destruction.  Each  State  believed 
that  its  commercial  prosperity  required  the  adoption  of  stringent  protective  meas- 
ures against  its  neighbors.  High  and  often  insurmountable  customs  barriers 
divided  populations  whose  interests  were  in  reality  identical.  Not  only  were 
duties  imposed  on  imports,  but  prohibitive  imposts  frequently  prevented  the  pos- 
sibility of  exportation.     All  countries  suffered  by  this  international  war  of  tariffs. - 

This  narrow  and  unwise  policy  through  the  restrictions  imposed 
upon  each  German  State,  while  it  encouraged  a  certain  degree  of  indus- 
trial life  in  .small  localities  and  .shielded  them  from  attack,  in  the  main 
proved  a  detriment  and  hindrance  to  general  trade  and  was  unsuited  to 
the  resources  and  conditions  of  the  people.  The  benefits  to  be  derived 
from  a  broader  and  more  enlightened  policy,  were  readily  understood  and 
an  agitation  was  soon  begun,  largely  through  the  efforts  of  Frederick 
List,  then  professor  of  Political  Economy  in  the  University  of  Tiibingen, 

'  Cobden  Club  Essays,  1871-72,  pp.  271-272.       =  Bismarck  and  State  Socialism,  p.  20. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


for  reciprocit}-  in  trade  between  the  States  and  protection  against  foreign 
competition.  The  connnercial  and  industrial  advantages  which  would 
arise  from  an  exchange  of  commodities  between  the  people  of  the  German 
States  was  fully  considered,  and  the  policy  of  removing  the  custom  houses 
to  the  frontier,  and  welding  the  peoples  so  similarly  situated  and  having 
identical  interests,  into  a  commercial  league,  grew  in  favor  until  the  pub- 
lic sentiment  became  ripe  for  its  execution. 

"Volumes  were  written,"  says  Macgregor,  "on  the  subject,  the 
public  press  and  the  ablest  political  economists  were  especially  engaged 
in  the  patriotic  service."  ' 

Prussia,  which  took  the  lead,  followed  her  tariff  law  of  1818,  by  an 
arrangement  perfected  in  18 19  with  Mecklenburg,  Saxe-Weimar,  and 
other  States,  by  which  her  tariff  system  became  extended  over  their  terri- 
tories. The  persistent  efforts  of  Prussia  in  this  direction  finally  resulted 
in  a  union  with  all  of  the  German  States.  On  the  twenty-.second  of 
March,  1833,  the  Kingdoms  of  Prussia,  Bavaria,  Wiirtemberg,  and  Sax- 
ony, with  Hesse-Darmstadt  and  Hesse-Cassel,  formed  an  agreement  called 
the  Zollverein,  or  Union  of  Customs.  The  revenues  were  to  be  divided 
among  the  States  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  their  inhabitants.  The 
other  German  States,  with  the  exception  of  Baden,  Nassau,  and  Frank- 
fort gave  their  consent  May  1 1 ,  of  the  same  year.  Nassau  and  Baden 
signed  the  agreement  May  12,  1835,  and  Frankfort  in  1836.  In  1841 
Brunswick,  and  in  1S42  Luxembourg  completed  the  league.  The  cities  of 
Hamburg  and  Bremen,  exercising  rights  as  free  cities  under  their  ancient 
charters,  refused  to  enter  the  union ;  even  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
Empire,  in  1871,  they  were  exempt  from  its  customs  regulations  and 
remained  open  ports,  and  not  until  very  recently  did  they  enter  the  Zoll- 
verein. The  apportionments  of  the  customs  revenue  among  the  States 
were  fixed  by  a  congress  of  the  union  held  at  Munich,  in  the  summer  of 
1836. 

The  tariff  law  enacted  by  Prussia  in  18 18  was  taken  as  a  basis  for 
the  union.  Changes  in  the  schedule  of  duties  were  left  to  be  fixed  by  a 
congress  of  representatives  appointed  from  the  States.  The  governments 
represented  in  the  Zollverein  congress  reserved  the  right  of  veto  upon  its 
acts.  The  Zollverein  parliament  continued  in  charge  of  the  tariff  regu 
lations  of  the  union  until  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  for  the  Empire 
in  187 1,  when  its  functions  were  vested  in  the  Reichstag  of  the  Empire. 
The  steps  taken  by  the  Zollverein  congress  during  the  years  immediately 
following  its  e.stablishment,  to  improve  the  tariff  schedules  and  to  adjust 
them  so  as  to  promote  the  industrial  welfare  of  the  State,  disclose  the 
definite  policy  of  protection  which  was  being  pursued.  The  duties  on 
cotton  goods  were  materially  increased  in  1843  and  1845.  Before  1850 
the  duty  on  cotton  yarn  had  been  increased  as  much  as  50  per  cent ; 

I  Commercial  Statistics.  Vol.  I.,  p.  486. 


PROTECTION  IK  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


linen,  200  per  cent;  on  linen  manufactures,  100  per  cent;  and  thread  and 
lace,  g%  per  cent.  In  1844  there  was  an  increase  in  the  duty  on  iron. 
The  average  rate  under  the  Act  of  18 18  on  importation  was  12  per  cent, 
while  by  1841  Professor  List  estimated  the  duties  on  manufactured  goods 
at  from  20  to  60  per  cent.  That  these  duties  were  unsatisfactory  to  the 
English  mauufacturers,  and  afforded  adequate  protection  to  the  coarser 
articles  of  more  common  use,  is  shown  by  the  criticism  made  bj'  Mr. 
Macgregor  in  1845.     He  said: 

The  rates  of  duty  are  certainly  not  to  be  defended ;  they  are  unjust,  as  not  bear- 
ing a  relative  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  articles  upon  which  the  duties  are 
imposed.  They  levy  the  same  duties  on  100  pounds  of  coarse  unbleached  calicoes 
as  upon  the  same  weight  of  the  finest  sheetings  and  cambrics;  and  on  100  pounds  of 
the  coarsest  woolen  flannels  and  blankets  as  on  an  equal  weight  of  the  finest 
kerseymeres  and  broadcloths;  the  duties  on  woven  goods,  instead  of  being  as  pro- 
mulgated publicly,  at  from  10  to  15  per  cent  on  the  value,  range  from  10  to  95  per 
cent  on  the  value.  There  is,  however,  one  great  virtue  in  levying  the  duties,  as 
rated  in  the  Prussian  tariff,  by  weight:  that  is,  the  discouragement  to  smuggling; 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  more  valuable  and  light  the  article  is,  the  duty 
becomes  so  low  in  proportion  that  there  is  not  sufficient  temptation  to  encounter 
the  risk  and  the  penalties  of  contraband  trade.  ' 

But  while  the  duties  imposed  afforded  protection  to  the  manufacture 
of  these  coarser  wares,  the  extensive  production  of  finer  fabrics  and  a 
greater  variety  of  articles  was  not  commenced  until  recent  j-ears,  when  a 
more  vigorous  system  of  protection  was  introduced  under  the  leadership 
of  Bismarck. 

Considering  the  economic  conditions  which  prevailed  during  the 
fifty  years  following  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  the  habits,  customs,  and 
pursuits  of  the  people,  the  results  which  followed  the  tariff  policy  were 
most  gratifying.  They  afford  a  vindication  of  those  economic  principles 
through  which  a  State  seeks  to  elevate  the  masses,  strengthen  and  build 
up  its  industries,  and  make  its  people  prosperous  and  progressive,  by  leg- 
islative discrimination  in  favor  of  home  producers  against  foreign  rivals. 
The  German  people  in  the  main,  since  the  close  of  the  Dark  Ages  have 
been  devoted  to  rural  pursuits.  The  feudal  system  which  prevailed  tended 
to  continue  the  large  land-owners  and  barons  in  power,  while  the  masses 
were  bound  to  a  condition  bordering  on  .serfage.  The  capital  of  the 
country  was  largely  tied  up  in  vast  landed  estates.  A  sufficient  number 
had  not  yet  turned  their  attention  to  manufacturing,  trade  and  commerce 
to  accumulate  any  considerable  degree  of  wealth  to  be  invested  in  busi- 
ness enterprises;  besides,  the  character  of  the  German  is  such  that  he  is 
.slow  to  change  his  occupation  and  turn  his  energies  into  new  and  untried 
pursuits.  The  exhausted  condition  of  the  country  at  the  close  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars  was  another  hindrance  to  a  rapid  industrial  develop- 
ment.     It  required  some  years  before  the  energies  of  this  people  would 

1  Coniniercial  Statistics,  Vol.  I.,  p.  547. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  E3IPIRE. 


become  sufficient!}-  aroused  to  make  them  capable  of  engaging  in  manu- 
facturing on  a  large  scale.  Again,  the  introduction  of  textile  machinery 
was  necessarilj-  slow,  because  it  was  largely  invented  by  the  English  peo- 
ple and  its  exportation  was  prohibited  until  1845.  The  period  between 
1815  and  i860  was,  however,  one  of  great  transformation  and  improve- 
ment, not  only  in  industries,  trade  and  commerce,  but  in  the  social  and 
political  conditions  of  the  people.  The  system  of  education  so  vigorously 
enforced  by  the  government  has  so  reduced  the  percentage  of  illiteracy 
that  the  universal  education  of  the  masses  has  become  one  of  the  distin- 
guishing features  of  the  people.  The  great  universities  and  seats  of  learn- 
ing are,  perhaps,  more  advanced  than  in  any  other  nation,  in  the 
departments  of  scientific  and  technical  information.  The  establish- 
ment of  free  land  tenures  and  the  extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage, 
and  democratic  institutions  indicate  a  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the 
masses,  which  would  naturally  be  expected  to  be  found  in  a  nation 
practicing  the  policy  of  protection  to  home  industries.  The  spirit  of 
nationality  and  the  powerful  political  empire  are  among  the  fruits  of  the 
Zollverein. 

Numerous  authorities  might  be  quoted  to  show  the  industrial  pros- 
perity and  benefits  which  followed  the  establishment  of  protection  for  the 
German  States.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  give  much  space  to  a 
fact  of  this  character  which  is  so  universally  conceded.  Mr.  Yeats,  an 
eminent  English  authorit}^  on  commercial  subjects,  in  speaking  of  the 
beneficent  influence  of  such  legislation,  said: 

The  Zollvereiu,  according  to  the  census  of  1867,  comprises  a  territory  of 
more  than  ninety  thousand  geographical  square  miles,  with  a  population  computed 
at  over  thirty-eight  millions.  Since  the  realization  of  commercial  freedom,  Ger- 
man industry  has  increased  in  an  unprecedented  degree,  and  to  a  certain  extent 
competes  successfully  with  that  of  Great  Britain. 

The  character  of  the  foreign  commerce  of  Germany  has  entirely  changed. 
Instead  of  exporting  raw  materials  only  she  sends  out  the  products  of  her  own  manu- 
facturing industry,  creating  a  market  abroad  which  keeps  her  actively  employed 
at  home.  The  German  woolen  manufacture  has  recovered  the  ground  lost  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  its  fabrics  at  present  form  a  chief  part  of  the  Zollverein  exports. 
The  manufacture  of  cotton  and  silk  has  made  equal  progress,  although  the  materials 
have  to  be  imported.  The  linen  trade  has  not  yet  been  able  to  compete  with  that 
of  England,  but  in  steel  and  iron  goods,  in  glass,  paper  and  silk  manufactures,  in 
pottery,  stoneware  and  porcelain,  in  chemicals,  the  refining  of  sugar  and  beer, 
Germany  abundantly  supplies  her  own  wants  and  yet  reserves  a  surplus  for  foreign 
interchange.  The  mercantile  marine  in  187 1  consisted  of  five  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  vessels,  whose  burden  was  about  1,300,000  tons,  which  was  half  as 
much  again    as  the  tonnage  of  the  French  merchant  navy.' 

The  abandonment  of  the  policy  of  protection  in  England  in  1S46,  of 
itself  had  a  great  influence  on  the  economic  thought  of  all  nations.     That 

^  Recent  and  Existing  Commerce,  p.  325. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


the  greatest  manufacturing  and  commercial  nation  in  Christendom  should 
discard  a  policy  which  it  had  pursued  for  three  centuries  and  under  which 
it  had  incurred  the  jealousy  and  hostility  of  the  world,  and  go  to  the  full 
length  of  opening  its  ports  to  the  free  admission  of  the  produce  of  all 
nations,  could  but  arrest  the  attention  of  economists  and  statesmen  of  all 
countries.  Mr.  Cobden  had  scarcely  completed  the  work  in  England, 
before  he  made  a  tour  of  the  Continent  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  free 
trade  party  in  the  .several  countries,  to  aid  in  the  establishment  of  uni- 
versal free  trade,  which  was  the  great  end  which  the  members  of  the  Anti- 
Corn  L,aw  League  had  in  view.  In  Germany  he  found  a  group  of  free 
traders  who  were  ready  to  lend  their  assistance  to  his  project.  The  old 
Prussian  free  traders,  who  had  opposed  the  formation  of  the  Zollverein 
and  the  protectionist  principles  which  were  embodied  in  the  legislation 
immediately  following  the  battle  of  Waterloo,  had  died  off.  It  was  to  new 
men  that  the  free  trade  party  in  England  must  look  for  help.  The  name 
of  Cobden  had  been  so  associated  with  the  free  trade  movement  in  Eng- 
land, the  liberal  features  and  alleged  advantages  of  free  trade  to  all  coun- 
tries had  been  so  heralded  throughout  the  world  and  .so  well  advertised  by 
English  .statesmen  and  writers,  that  Mr.  Cobden  became  the  centre  of 
attraction  and  an  object  of  curiosity  wherever  he  went  on  his  tour..  He 
was  given  a  reception  at  Berlin  and  Stettin.  When  he  left  for  Russia  he 
stated  to  Julius  Faucher,  "Always  rely  upon  the  men  who  keep  accounts 
at  double  entry,  and  the  best  allies  are  those  who  have  the  best  name  on 
'Change.  All  will  go  well. ' '  Just  what  Mr.  Cobden  meant  by  this  expres- 
sion might  be  viewed  in  several  ways,  but  he  undoubtedly  had  in  mind 
the  principle  upon  which  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  so  much  relied,  of 
placing  persons  of  wealth  in  control  and  directing  legislation  more  exclu- 
sively to  promote  their  intere.sts.  From  the  time  of  Cobden's  visit  to 
Germany,  the  agitation  in  favor  of  free  trade  constantly  increased,  until 
many  of  the  leading  and  most  influential  statesmen  had  been  converted  to 
its  principles,  and  those  offices  which  controlled  and  directed  commercial 
affairs  became  filled  with  free  traders.  As  the  agitation  in  Germany 
progres.sed,  constant  correspondence  was  carried  on  between  its  leaders 
and  Mr.  Cobden  until  his  death.  The  advocates  of  free  trade  formed 
what  was  styled  a  Congress  of  Political  Economists.  Of  this  body 
Julius  Faucher  says  that  it  "  contributed  more  to  shape  the  law  of  the 
Empire  as  it  now  is  (1871)  than  all  the  Landtags  and  Chambers  of 
Germany  put  together. ' '  ' 

Its  plan  of  campaign  was  to  win  over  adherents  in  the  localities 
where  the  chief  industries  were  carried  on,  by  inviting  manufacturers 
and  business  men  to  meet  in  open  discu.ssion.  At  these  meetings  the 
free  trade  disputants,  who  for  a  j'ear  had  been  preparing  .statistics, 
studying    their   dogmas   and    developing   fine-spun    theories,    suddenly 

'  Cobden  Club  Essays,  1871-72,  pp.  288,  289. 


PEOTECTIOX  /iV  THE  GERMAN  E3IPIRE. 


sprang  them  upon  the  busy  manufacturer,  with  telling  effect.  One 
familiar  with  the  so-called  scientific  literature  studied  by  the  profes- 
sional free  trade  agitator,  can  form  something  of  an  idea  of  the  arguments 
used  to  overthrow  the  policy  of  protection  in  Germany.  The  system  of  pro- 
tection was  then  in  vogue.  The  generation  to  whom  their  arguments 
were  addressed  had  grown  up  since  those  disastrous  years  when  the  coun- 
try was  flooded  with  British  wares.  Besides,  the  policy  of  free  trade  had 
not  been  put  into  'practice  by  any  nation  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to 
show  results  one  way  or  the  other.  Prophecies  were  cheap.  They  were 
undoubtedly  liberally  indulged  in  as  they  had  been  on  all  similar  occa- 
sions, to  show  what  would  happen  and  how  the  country  would  pro.sper 
under  free  trade.  Appeals  to  prejudices,  expressions  in  favor  of  personal 
liberty  and  individual  rights,  would  fully  accord  with  the  democratic 
spirit  which  had  taken  such  a  strong  hold  on  the  German  people.  While 
the  manufacturers  were  too  busy  to  expose  the  sophistry  of  the  free  trade 
economists,  their  own  experience  was  sufficient  to  satisfy  them  of  the 
errors  involved  in  the  scheme  and  the  results  which  would  follow  an  inun- 
dation of  their  country  with  British  wares.  But  the  work  went  on,  until 
finally  the  policy  of  protection  was  overthrown  by  a  band  of  theorists  who 
were  being  supplied  with  arguments  and  sophistry  from  Manchester. 

The  first  successful  attack  on  the  tariff  schedules  of  the  Zollverein 
came  in  1865,  when  many  old  duties  were  reduced  and  others  repealed. 
This  was  but  a  skirmish  line  of  the  battle  yet  to  come. 

Herr  Delbriick  and  Count  Bernstorf,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
were  active  in  support  of  the  free  trade  measures.  The  next  step  toward 
free  trade  was  the  Commercial  Treaty  with  Austria  in  1868,  through 
which  import  duties  were  greatly  reduced.  Still  further  reductions  were 
made  in  1868,  1869,  1870,  1873,  and  by  1877  the  tariff  regulations  had 
been  swept  away  and  the  German  Empire  had  passed  to  a  free  trade 
policy. 

There  was  not  the  slightest  occasion  for  this  assault  on  the  economic 
policy  of  the  country,  to  be  found  either  in  the  condition  of  the  foreign 
trade,  the  home  trade  or  the  development  of  the  industries  of  the  country. 
It  was  a  raid  started  and  pressed  to  a  successful  issue  by  men  inexperi- 
enced in  business,  by  dogmatic  and  speculative  reasoners.  The  benefits 
which  they  claimed  would  arise  from  a  free  trade  policy  rested  wholly  on 
prophecy ;  beside  which  they  were  doing  the  bidding  of  Cobden  and  his 
associates  and  acting  under  a  close  alliance  with  the  British  free  traders 
of  Manchester.  As  will  appear  later,  they  took  advantage  of  political 
conditions  which  were  favorable  to  the  enforcement  of  their  notions 
The  statesmen  of  the  country  were  occupied  with  the  great  problem  of 
political  union  and  the  establishment  of  an  empire.  Under  these  cir 
cumstances  the  allies  of  Great  Britain  were  forcing  themselves  into  the 
control  of  the  economic  affairs  of  the  nation. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


The  free  trade  policy  of  Germauy  was  of  short  duration.  The  men 
who  made  it  possible  soon  ceased  to  exercise  influence  in  the  affairs  of 
the  nation,  and  a  protectionist  reaction  set  in,  which  swept  away  every 
vestige  of  free  trade  and  gave  to  the  people  more  adequate  protection  than 
they  had  ever  enjoyed.  The  one  man  who  is  entitled  above  all  others  to 
the  credit  of  returning  to  a  sound  economic  policy  is  Prince  Bismarck, 
the  most  prominent  character  in  German  politics,  whose  great  energies 
shortly  after  the  formation  of  the  ZoUverein,  had  been  centred  in  military 
affairs  and  in  uniting  all  of  the  German  States  with  his  own  country  (Prus- 
sia) into  a  political  union.  A  statesman  of  pre-eminent  ability  exhibited 
as  member  of  the  Prussian  parliament  and  as  minister  to  Russia  and 
France,  with  years  of  ripened  experience,  Bismarck  was  fully  equipped 
for  the  great  duties  of  Prime  Minister  which  naturally  and  logicallj'  fell 
to  him  upon  the  establishment  of  the  Empire.  The  rivalry  between 
Austria  and  Prussia  may  be  traced  back  to  the  time  of  Frederick  the  Great. 
The  Prussian  statesmen  early  conceived  the  idea  of  extending  their 
empire  and  uniting  with  it  the  smaller  kingdoms  and  .states  of  Germany. 
The  formation  of  the  ZoUverein  was  one  of  the  first  steps  in  this  direc- 
tion. Au.strian  statesmen  not  only  saw  the  advantage  of  this  policy,  but 
jealous  of  the  rising  powers  of  their  old  rival,  sought  to  gain  admission  to 
the  union.  This  was  opposed  by  Prussia.  Early  in  the  fifties,  William 
I.  and  Bismarck  entered  upon  a  policy  of  strengthening  and  disciplining 
the  Prussian  army.  Although  meeting  with  many  difficulties  in  obtaining 
appropriations  for  that  purpose  in  time  of  peace,  their  efforts  were  so 
successful  that  by  1866,  after  having  some  experience  in  the  Danish  wars, 
they  felt  that  they  were  able  to  crush  Austria,  gain  favor  with  the  Ger- 
man States  and  consummate  their  great  purpose.  In  1866  Austria  was 
invaded  with  an  army  of  250,000  men. 

The  Austrians  were  routed  and  crushed  at  Sadowa,  one  of  the  greatest 
battles  of  modern  times.  The  discipline  of  the  soldiers,  the  superior  gen- 
eralship displayed  by  the  Prussians,  awakened  the  world  to  the  fact  that 
some  mighty  intellects  were  controlling  the  destiny  of  Prussia  and  direct- 
ing her  affairs.  King  William,  Bismarck  and  Baron  Von  Moltke,  had 
now  made  the  consummation  of  their  great  purpose  possible.  Napoleon 
III.,  who  then  sat  on  the  French  throne,  jealous  of  the  rising  power  of 
Prussia,  began  to  prepare  for  war.  The  crj-  soon  ran  through  France, 
' '  Revenge  for  Sadowa. ' '  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  mention  the 
details  of  the  incidents  which  led  up  to  the  war  which  followed.  The 
Emperor  of  France  was  anxiously  waiting  for  a  pretext  to  open  hostilities. 
It  was  found  in  July,  1870,  when, 

Gramont,  the  French  iiiiiiister.  laid  a  distorted  representation  of  the  previons 
negotiations  before  the  Representative  Assembly  (July  15),  alleging  a  gross  affront 
offered  to  the  French  ambassador;  and,  although  vehemently  opposed  by  some 
members,  especially  by  Thiers,  the  Assembly  voted,  nearly  unanimously,  500,000,000 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GEE3IAN  EMPIRE. 


This  was  the  actual  declaration  of 


the  formal  followed, 


francs  for  the 
July  19. 

The  outcome  of  this  rash  act  on  the  part  of  Napoleon  III.  is  fresh  in 
the  minds  of  all.  The  French  people,  unprepared,  undisciplined,  without 
o-enerals  able  to  cope  with  the  Prussians,  with  their  affairs  in  the  hands 
of  a  weak  ruler  and  divided  among  themselves,  although  fighting  with 
the  bravery  which  has  always  characterized  the  French  soldier,  were 
unable  from  the  start  to  resist  the  Prussian  invasion.  Scarcely  had  the 
declaration  of  war  been  announced  in  Prussia,  when  half  a  million  men  were 
in  the  field  ready  for  action,  and  marching  toward  the  French  border. 
The  French,  defeated  in  ever>-  engagement,  with  the  Emperor  a  prisoner, 
had  fallen  back  and  confined  themselves  within  the  strongholds  of  Paris. 
Bn-  February  12,  187 1,  the  war  was  at  a  close.  The  terms  of  peace,  dic- 
tated by  King  William,  were  accepted  and  the  Germans  withdrew  from 
the  country. 

Although  of  short  duration,  it  was  one  of  the  bloodiest  and  most 
destructive  wars  of  modern  times.  Not  only  important  in  its  display  of 
modern  military  tactics  and  ordnance,  but  still  more  important  in  its 
political  effect  on  the  destiny  of  France  and  Central  Europe.  In  this 
short  space  of  time  the  monarchy  had  been  ovethrown  and  the  French 
Republic  rose  from  the  ruins.  On  January  17,  187 1,  at  Versailles,  King 
William  assuined  the  imperial  dignity  under  the  title  of  German  Emperor; 
and  on  the  sixteenth  of  August  of  the  same  year,  a  constitution  was 
formally  signed  which  united  Prussia  and  the  German  States  into  an 
empire.  Under  the  constitution  the  Zollverein  Congress  was  at  an  end, 
and  all  tariff  regulations  were  now  to  be  enacted  by  the  Reichstag.  The 
final  overthrow  of  protection  was  accomplished  during  the  period  of  specu- 
lation and  prosperity  which  followed  the  war.  The  payment  of  the  war 
indemnity  by  France  had  filled  Germany  with  gold.  The  vast  expendi- 
tures of  the  government  during  the  war  had  placed  in  circulation  large 
sums  of  money.  Universal  prosperity  prevailed.  Everybody  was  specu- 
lating in  the  stock  companies  and  other  enterprises  which  were  being 
promoted.  This  condition  made  it  easy  for  the  free  traders,  and  for  a 
time  they  had  everything  their  own  way.  Yet  protectionism  in  Germany 
was  not  dead.  The  blighting  effect  of  free  trade  legislation  between  1865 
and  1870,  before  the  war  broke  out,  was  being  felt.  The  reaction  against 
Cobdenism  had  begun  to  set  in,  but  was  for  a  time  checked  by  the  war 
and  the  business  conditions  which  prevailed  after  its  termination 

In  1872  a  protectionist  party  was  organized  at  Eisenach,  to  combat 
the  theories  which  were  being  promulgated  by  the  free  traders,  and  to 
resist  the  movement  which  had  gained  such  strength  and  ascendency 
through  the  efforts  of  the  Congress  of  Political  Economists,  which,  since 
1858,  the  time  of  its  organization  at  Gotha,  had  won  the  monied  and 
trading  classes  over  to  the  Manchester  school.  The  protectionist  party 
27 


PROTECTION  IX  COXTIXENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


was  organized  upon  a  much  broader  basis  of  economic  principles  than  the 
old  protectionist  party  of  List,  or  the  protectionists  of  France  and  the 
United  States.  It  supported  also  some  of  the  principles  of  social  democ- 
racy, advocating  the  extension  of  the  functions  of  government  to  the 
ownership  of  railroads,  telegraph's,  and  other  public  enterprises.  It  also 
favored  the  extension  of  the  guardianship  of  the  States  over  the  working 
classes,  and  laws  for  the  amelioration  of  their  condition.  This  phase  of 
the  question  found  expression  in  several  legislative  measures  among  which 
may  be  mentioned  a  law  for  compulsory  insurance  in  case  of  sickness 
(1883);  a  similar  law  regarding  accidents  (1884);  and  oue  providing  an- 
nuities for  old  age,  and  in  case  of  incapacity  for  further  work  (1889). 
With  regard  to  this  legislation  Prof.  Wagner  says: 

Its  ruling  idea  was  the  untenableness  in  modern  times  of  the  -laisses  /aire 
principle,  the  one-sidedness  of  the  theory  that  the  State  should  restrict  its  activity 
to  the  mere  maintenance  of  the  law  and  the  promotion  of  peace  without  and  within. 
It  demanded  State  encouragement  and  protection  of  trade,  industry  and  agriculture. 
State  promotion  of  the  interest  of  culture  in  general  and  State  intervention  in 
the  workingman's  condition. 

As  soon  as  the  period  of  speculation  had  passed  away  and  the  trade 
of  the  country  assumed  its  normal  condition,  the  disastrous  effect  of  free 
competition  and  open  ports  began  to  be  felt.  The  various  industries  of 
the  country  were  checked  in  their  expansion  by  foreign  competition, 
and  the  people  were  brought  face  to  face  with  the  practical  working  of 
the  Manchester  policy.  The  conditions  which  prevailed  and  the  first 
steps  taken  by  Bismarck  toward  a  return  to  protection,  are  very  concisel)- 
stated  by  Mr.  Dawson,  as  follows: 

Failure  followed  failure.  Factories  were  stopped,  warehouses  were  closed,  and 
industrial  fortunes,  built  up  slowly  by  the  accumulation  of  hard-earned  profits,  dis- 
appeared like  the  snow  beneath  the  sun.  Labor  fated  even  worse  than  capital. 
The  wages  which  had  risen  so  rapidly  fell  with  a  shock,  where,  through  the  cessation 
of  employment,  they  were  entirely  lost  to  the  toiler's  family.  Agriculture,  too,  had 
long  been  .suffering  severely.  Prices  had  fallen  while  taxation  had  risen.  In  many 
parts  corn  could  no  longer  be  grown  at  a  profit  on  account  of  the  enormous  imports 
of  foreign  grain,  and  the  area  under  cultivation  had  considerably  decreased.  The 
imports  of  rye,  barley  and  oats  over  the  Russo-Prussiau  frontier  or  by  the  Baltic 
Sea  had  doubled  in  two  years: 

Rye.  Barley.  Oa\.». 

1S75 6,869,324        530,107         2,368,663  cwts. 

1876 11,361,144   594.312   3.196,049  " 

T877 13,266,203  1,920,778   3,620,447'  " 

The  imports  of  .■\merican  corn  had  also  increased  greatly. 

The  disastrous  commercial  crisis  which  Germany  passed  through  at  this  time, 
gave  great  stimulus  to  the  uiovement  for  protection.  The  reactionary  party 
redoubled  its  efforts,  and  by  means  of  the  parliamentary  tribune,  the  public 
platfonn,  the  press,  and  by  pamphlets  and  ephemeral  literature,  endeavored  to 
convince  the  country  of  the  folly  of  "Manchesterdom.  " 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GEB3IAN  EMPIRE. 

But  success  was  not  to  be  attained  just  yet.  Prince  Bismarck  has  placed  it  on 
record  that  the  year  1S77  was  the  decisive  year  in  which  he  came  to  a  turning-point 
in  his  life,  so  far  as  concerned  economical  and  social  questions.  Then  he  began  to 
make  economics  a  serious  study.     He  has  said : 

' '  During  the  first  fifteen  years  of  my  ministerial  activity  I  was  absorbed  by  foreign 
politics,  and  I  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  trouble  myself  much  with  the  internal 
politics  of  the  Empire,  nor  had  I  the  requisite  time.  I  took  it  for  granted  that  the 
internal  affairs  were  in  good  hands.  Afterward,  when  I  lost  the  help  which  I  had 
thought  reliable,  I  was  compelled  to  look  into  matters  myself,  and  I  found  that 
though  I  had  up  to  then  sworn  in  verba  magislri  the  actual  results  did  not  come  up 
to  the  expectations  which  underlay  our  legislation.  I  had  the  impression  that 
since  the  introduction  of  the  free  trade  system  in  1865  we  fell  into  atrophy,  which 
was  only  checked  for  a  time  by  the  new  blood  of  the  five  milliard  contribution, 
and  that  it  was  necessary  to  adopt  a  remedy. ' ' 

Up  to  1876  Bismarck  had  entrusted  the  country's  economic  policy  entirely  to 
Minister  von  Delbruck,  but  in  that  year  this  colleague  resigned  office.  The  reason 
given  for  the  withdrawal  of  Dr.  Delbruck  was  ' '  motives  of  health, ' '  but  everyone  knew 
that  he  left  the  Chancellor  because  of  irreconcilable  disagreement  of  views.  The 
resignation  of  Dr.  Delbruck,  who  occupied  the  position  of  President  of  the 
Chancellerie,  was  followed  by  that  of  Herr  Camphausen,  Minister  of  Finance,  and 
before  two  years  had  passed  the  Ministers  of  Commerce  and  the  Interior  had  also 
withdrawn  from  office.  Everything  was  now  propitious  for  the  inauguration  of  a 
new  economic  era.  Prince  Bismarck  referred  as  follows,  in  the  Prussian  Lower 
House,  on  February  4,   18S1,  to  the  Delbruck  secession: 

"Before  I  concerned  myself  personally  with  customs  questions  I  did  not  repre- 
sent my  own  convictions,  but  those  of  my  colleague  Delbruck,  whom  I  regarded  as 
the  right  man  in  the  right  place,  for  I  had  no  time  to  form  my  own  views.  . 
It  was  the  retirement  of  Delbruck  which  compelled  me  to  form  views  for  myself 
and  to  express  them.  I  cannot  properly  say  that  I  formerly  held  other  views  than 
now ;  you  might  as  well  dispute  with  me  as  to  whether  I  had  been  of  this  or  that 
opinion,  had  held  this  or  that  theory,  respecting  some  scientific  question.  I  had  no 
time  to  form  a  definite  picture  of  mercantile  politics.  I  deny  that  my  former  views 
were  opposed  to  my  present,  for  I  had  none;  I  was  the  obedient  disciple  of  Herr 
Delbruck,  and  I  expressed  his  views  when  I  expressed  views  at  all.  But  when  he 
retired  from  the  partnership,  I  was  compelled  to  represent  my  own  opinion,  which 
perhaps  deviated  in  many  respects  from  his,  but  I  certainly  did  not  formerly  hold 
contrary  opinions,  which  now  I  have  changed."' 

The  economic  principles  advocated  by  this  distinguished  statesman, 
the  views  entertained  of  the  true  Junctions  of  government,  the  duty  which 
the  nation  owes  to  its  people,  the  community  of  interest  involved,  the 
degree  of  sympathy  which  should  prevail  among  citizens,  command  the 
most  careful  attention  and  most  earnest  reflection  of  the  best  thought  of 
the  age  in  all  countries.  Bismarckism,  protectionism  in  Germany,  is  the 
very  opposite  of  Cobdenism.  The  Manchester  school  of  economics  was 
based  upon  the  principles  announced  b}-  the  Physiocrats  of  France,  who 
held  that  the  State  should  confine  itself  simply  to  police  regulations  in 
preserving  order,  leaving  the  individual  to  fight  out  the  battle  of  the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest  in  the  struggle  for  existence;  leaving  the  strong,  the 
cunning  and  crafty  to  destroy  the  weak.     The  cold  adherents  to  these 

*  Bismarck  and  State  Socialism,  pp.  40  and  41. 


PliOTECriON  IjX  continental  and  OTHEli  COUNTRIES. 


\ 


I 
\ 


principles  could  view  with  philosophic  unconcern  the  degradation  and 
misery  of  the  masses  doomed  to  eternal  want,  with  no  hope  of  ever  extri- 
cating themselves  from  conditions  which  were  held  to  be  the  natural 
order  of  things.  The  broadest-minded,  the  most  humane  and  the  most 
enlightened  statesmen  of  all  countries  have  rejected  the  cold-blooded,  and 
what  are  believed  by  many  to  betheun-Christian,  teachings  of  thegreedy 
capitalists  of  Manchester.  The  earlier  speeches  of  Bismarck  show  that 
his  great  mind,  soon  after  becoming  charged  with  the  responsibility  of 
public  aiTairs,  grasped  the  fundamental  principles  of  "a  government  of 
the  people,  by  the  people  and  for  the  people. ' ' 
He  said  on  June  15,  1847: 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  idea  of  the  Christian  State  is  as  old  as  the  ci-devant 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  as  old  as  all  the  European  States,  and  that  it  is  the  soil  in  which 
these  States  have  taken  root,  and  that  a  State  if  it  would  have  an  assured  perma- 
nence, if  it  would  only  justify  its  existence,  when  it  is  disputed,  must  stand  on  a 
religious  foundation.  ...  I  believe  I  am  right  in  calling  that  State  a  Christian 
State  which  seeks  to  realize  the  teaching  of  Christianity.  That  our  State  has  not 
succeeded  in  doing  this  in  all  respects  was  shown  yesterday  by  the  Deputy  Baron 
von  Vincke  in  a  parallel,  more  ingenious  than  agreeable  to  my  religious  feelings, 
between  the  truths  of  the  gospel  and  the  paragraphs  of  the  common  law. 

From  this  expression  of  his  views  we  can  readily  understand  how  it 
was  that  upon  making  a  careful  examination  of  the  science  of  economics, 
he  declared  that  he  "holds  free  trade  to  be  altogether  false  as  an  absolute 
principle,"  and  became  one  of  the  strongest  champions  of  the  doctrine  of 
protection.  It  was  undoubtedly  his  conviction  of  the  duty  which  the 
State  owed  to  its  people,  the  purpo.ses  for  which  governments  are 
in.stituted,  that  controlled  his  actions  in  the  economic  policy  which  he 
favored.     On  April  2,  1881,  he  said: 

I  should  like  to  see  the  State,  which  for  the  most  part  consists  of  Christians — 
although  you  reject  the  name  Christian  State — penetrated  to  some  extent  by  the 
principles  of  the  religion  it  professes;  especially  as  concerns  the  help  one  gives  to 
his  neighbor,  and  sympathy  with  the  lot  of  old  and  suffering  people. 

Here  he  shows  the  regard  which  the  government  should  have  for  the 
welfare  of  the  poor.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  free  trade 
policy  of  England  only  concerns  itself  with  the  something  over  6,000,000 
of  property  holders,  leaving  the  30,000,000  of  toilers  to  make  their 
way  under  adverse  conditions,  to  survive  or  peri.sh  as  the  case  may  be. 
Expressing  himself  upon  the  concern  which  the  State  .should  have  for  the 
welfare  of  all  its  people,  on  January  9,  1882,  he  said: 

I  do  not  comprehend  with  what  right  we  acknowledge  the  demands  of 
Christianity  as  binding  upon  our  private  dealings  and  yet  in  the  most  important 
sphere  of  our  duty — participation  in  the  legislation  of  a  country  having  a  population 
of  forty-five  million  people — push  them  into  the  background  and  say,  here  we  need 
not  trouble.  For  my  part  I  confess  openly  that  my  belief  in  the  consequence  of 
our  revealed  religion,   in  the  form  of  moral  law,   is  sueScient  for  me,  and  certainly 


PROTECTION  IX  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


y  the  Emperor,  and  that  the  question 
nothing  to  do  with  the  matter.  I,  a 
as  such   I  am  determined  to  act  as  I 


for  the  position  taken  upon  this  question  1 
of  the  Christian  or  non-Christian  State  has 
minister  of  the  State,  am  a  Christian,  and 
believe  I  am  justified  before  God. 

In  discussing  the  application  of  free  trade  dogmas  to  the  question 
of  the  omission  of  a  government  to  perform  its  duty  toward  its  people,  he 
said: 

Herr  Richter  has  called  attention  to  the  responsibility  of  the  State  for  what  it 
does.  But  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  State  can  also  be  responsible  for  what  it  does 
not  do.  I  do  not  think  that  doctrines  like  those  of  " Laissez /aire,  laissez  aller." 
"Pure  Manchesterdom  in  politics,"  "Jeder  seke,  wie  er's  ireibe,  Jeder  sehe  wo  er 
bleibt,"  "He  who  is  not  strong  enough  to  stand  must  be  knocked  down  and 
trodden  to  the  ground,"  "To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given,  and  from  him  that 
hath  not  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath" — that  doctrines  like  these 
should  be  applied  in  the  State,  and  especially  in  a  monarchrcally,  paternally  governed 
State.  On  the  other  hand,  I  believe  that  those  who  profess  horror  at  the  inter\'ention 
of  the  State  for  the  protection  of  the  weak  lay  themselves  open  to  the  suspicion 
that  they  are  desirous  of  using  their  strength — be  it  that  of  capital,  that  of  rhetoric, 
or  whatever  it  be — for  the  benefit  of  a  section,  for  the  oppression  of  the  'rest,  for 
the  introduction  of  party  domination,  and  that  they  will  be  chagrined  as  soon  as 
this  design  is  disturbed  by  any  action  of  the  government. 

Then  with  these  views  of  the  function  of  government,  its  duties  and 
responsibilities  we  find  him  judging  of  economic  policies  from  results 
which  are  easily  pointed  out.  It  was  the  experience  of  men  and  nations 
which  guided  him  in  choosing  between  protection  and  free  trade.  He 
saw  that  those  nations  which  had  been  most  prosperous  and  whose  people 
enjoyed  the  highest  degree  of  comfort  and  happiness  practiced  the  princi- 
ples of  protection,  while  those  which  had  been  lea.st  pro-sperous  and  in 
which  the  greatest  degree  of  suffering  and  degradation  is  found  among 
the  masses  practiced  free  trade.  This  one  important  fact  so  easily 
observed,  so  definite  and  reliable,  has  as  it  .should  have  done,  exercised 
a  controlling  influence  among  the  great  statesmen  of  the  world.  It  is 
the  one  great  fact  which  has  destroyed  and  proven  the  absurdity  of  free 
trade  dogmas.  Upon  this  phase  of  the  question  on  May  2,  1879,  he 
stated  to  the  German  parliament : 

I  pay  as  little  regard  to  science  as  I  do  in  any  other  judgment  of  organic  insti- 
tutions. Our  surgery  has  made  splendid  progress  during  the  last  two  thousand 
years;  but  medical  science  has  made  no  progress  in  regard  to  the  internal  condi- 
tions of  the  body,  into  which  the  human  eye  cannot  see,  and  here  we  stand  face  to 
face  with  the  same  riddles  as  before.  So  it  is  with  the  organic  formation  of  States. 
In  this  respect  the  abstract  doctrines  of  science  do  not  influence  me;  I  judge 
according  to  the  experience  which  we  have.  I  see  that  the  countries  which  protect 
themselves  prosper,  that  the  countries  which  are  open  are  declining,  and  that  great 
and  powerful  England,  that  strong  combatant,  who,  after  strengthening  her  muscles, 
entered  the  market  and  said:  "Who  will  contest  with  me?  I  am  ready  for 
anyone, ' '  is  gradually  going  back  to  protective  duties  and  will  in  a  few  years  adopt 
them  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  preserving  at  least  the  English  market. 


PROTFX'TION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Theory  of  "robber  barons,"  "moiiOf)oli.sts, "  and  "plutocrats,"  which 
British  free  traders  have  borrowed  from  the  anarchists,  was  raised  iri 
Germany  as  it  has  been  in  all  countries  where  the  raid  against  protection 
has  been  egged  on  from  Manchester  and  the  Cobden  Club.  Such  argu- 
ments did  not  deceive  Bismarck.  He  well  knew  that  the  cry  was  raised 
as  a  sham.  That  any  undue  and  improper  encroachment  of  capital,  as 
well  as  combinations  of  all  sorts  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  people, 
could  be  stamped  out  or  controlled  only  through  State  action ;  while  under 
the  individualism  of  free  trade,  the  hand  of  the  government  would  be 
kept  off,  and  there  would  be  no  power  except  the  law  of  the  survival  of 
the  fittest,  to  check  the  aggression  of  improper  combinations.  With  a 
well-directed  government  Bismarck  did  not  fear  the  wealth  of  the  people, 
but  saw  the  great  benefit  of  capital  when  directed  to  the  development  of 
the  resources  of  a  country  and  the  employment  of  labor.  In  a  speech  in 
the  Reichstag,  he  said: 

I  wish  we  could  immediately  create  a  few  hundred  millionaires.  They  wouM 
expend  their  money  in  the  country,  and  this  expenditure  would  act  fruitfully  on 
labor  all  round.  They  could  not  eat  their  money  themselves;  they  would  have  to 
spend  the  interest  on  it.  Be  glad  then,  when  people  become  rich  with  us.  The 
community  at  large,   and  not  onlj'  the  tax  authorit3^   is  .sure  to  benefit. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1877  a  movement  for  the  return  to  pro- 
tection assumed  a  definite  form.  The  government  was  applied  to  by  the 
protectionist  party  to  restore  the  import  duties  on  competing  commodi 
ties.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Prince  Bismarck  was  i^ursuing  his  investi- 
gations and  giving  the  question  his  serious  consideration.  A  conference- 
had  just  been  held  at  Heidelburg,  of  the  ministers  of  finance  of  the  various 
German  States,  to  consider  the  financial  condition  of  the  country.  Upon 
the  conclusion  of  their  deliberations  on  the  question,  it  was  recorjimended 
that  the  revenues  of  the  nation  be  increased  by  duties  on  imports.  Upon 
the  recommendation  of  the  Chancellor,  the  federal  council  appointed  a 
committee  of  fifteen  members  to  investigate  the  whole  question.  The 
attitude  of  the  government  is  disclosed  in  a  communication  addressed  by 
the  Chancellor  to  the  committee  on  December  15,  187S.  A  return  to  a 
protective  tariff  was  recommended.  In  the  language  of  the  communica- 
tion such  a  policy  was  favored  as 

Was  laid  down  in  the  Prussian  cu.stonis  legislation  from  the  year  1818  onward, 
and  later  found  expression  in  the  universal  import  duty  imposed  by  the  custoins 
tariff  of  the  Zollverein  up  to  1865.  Exemption  from  this  liability  to  pay  duty  would  be 
allowed  to  raw  materials  indispensable  to  industry  which,  like  cotton,  cannot  be  pro- 
duced in  Germany,  and  according  to  circumstances,  to  those  which  can  only  be  pro- 
duced in  insufficient  quantity  or  quality.  All  articles  not  specially  exempted  should 
be  subjected  to  an  import  duty  graduated  according  to  the  value  of  the  commodit>' 
and  on  the  basis  of  various  percentages,  according  to  the  requirements  of  home 
production.  The  customs  rates  thus  to  be  laid  down  would  be  reduced  to  weight- 
units,  as   is  the  rule   in   the  existing  customs  tariff,  and   in  this  way  levied,  so  far 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


as,  from  the  nature  of  the  object,  the  levy  of  the  duty  may  not  be  desirable  per 
piece  (as  in  the  case  of  cattle)  or  according  to  value  (as  in  the  case  of  railway  car 
riages  or  iron  river  craft), 

A  customs  system  which  secures  to  the  entire  home  production  a  preference 
before  foreign  production  in  the  home  market,  while  keeping  within  the  limits 
imposed  by  financial  interests,  will  not  run  the  risk  of  this  antipathy.  Such  a 
system  will  in  no  way  appear  partial,  because  its  effects  will  be  more  equally  spread 
over  all  the  productive  circles  of  the  land  than  is  the  case  with  a  system  of  pro- 
tective duties  for  isolated  branches  of  industry.  The  minority  of  the  population, 
which  does  not  produce  at  all  but  exclusively  consumes,  will  apparently  be  injured 
by  a  customs  system  favoring  the  entire  national  production.  Yet,  if  by  means  of 
such  a  s}-stem  the  aggregate  sum  of  the  values  produced  in  the  countrv'  increase,  and 
thus  the  national  wealth  be  on  the  whole  enhanced,  the  non-producing  parts  of  the 
population — and  especially  the  State  and  communal  officials  who  are  dependent 
upon  a  fixed  money  income — will  eventually  be  benefited ;  for  means  of  counter- 
balancing hardships  will  be  at  the  command  of  the  community  in  case  the  exten- 
sion of  customs-liability  to  the  entire  imports  should  result  in  an  increase  of  the 
prices  of  the  necessaries  of  life.  Yet  with  low  duties  such  an  increase  will,  in  all 
probability,  not  take  place  to  the  extent  to  which  consumers  are  accustomed  to 
apprehend,  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  the  prices  of  bread  and  meat  have  not  fallen 
to  an  appreciable  degree  in  consequence  of  the  abolition  of  the  duties  on  corn- 
grinding  and  cattle  killing  in  the  parishes  where  these  used  to  exist.  The  real 
financial  duties  imposed  on  articles  which  are  not  produced  at  home  and  the  import 
of  which  is  indispensable,  will  in  part  fall  upon  the  consumer  alone.  On  the 
contran,',  with  articles  which  the  country  is  able  to  produce  in  quantity  and  quality 
adequate  to  the  home  consumption,  the  foreign  producer  will  alone  have  to  bear  the 
duty  in  order  that  he  may  compete  in  the  German  market.  Finally,  in  cases  in 
which  part  of  the  home  demand  must  be  covered  by  foreign  supply,  the  foreign 
producer  will  in  general  be  compelled  to  bear  at  least  a  part  and  often  the  whole  of 
the  duty,  and  thus  to  reduce  his  profit  to  the  extent  of  this  amount. 

The  economic  policy  foreshadowed  by  this  communication  could  not 
be  mistaken.  The  public  revenue  was  regarded  as  of  minor  importance 
when  compared  with  the  industrial  and  commercial  interests  involved  in 
a  return  to  the  system  of  protection.  The  communication  from  which  the 
above  quotation  was  taken,  was  followed  by  an  address  from  the  throne  on 
February  12,  1879,  which  contained  the  following: 

The  federal  governments  are  considering  legislative  measures  for  the  removal, 
or  at  least  the  diminution,  of  the  common  evils  from  which  we  are  suffering.  The 
proposals  which  I  have  made,  and  still  intend  to  make,  to  my  allies  aim,  by  pro- 
viding the  Empire  with  new  sources  of  revenue,  at  placing  the  governments  in  a 
position  to  desist  from  levying  the  taxes  which  they  and  their  legislatures  recog- 
nize as  the  hardest  to  enforce.  At  the  same  time  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the 
country's  entire  economic  activity  has  a  right  to  claim  all  the  support  which  legis- 
lative adjustment  of  duties  and  taxes  can  afford,  and  which  in  the  lands  with  which 
we  trade  is,  perhaps,  afforded  beyond  actual  requirement.  I  regard  it  as  my  duty 
to  adopt  measures  to  preser\'e  the  German  market  to  national  production  so  far  as 
is  consistent  with  the  general  interest;  and  our  customs  legislation  must  accordingly 
revert  to  the  tried  principles  upon  which  the  prosperous  career  of  the  Zollverein 
rested  for  nearly  a  half  a  century,  but  which  have  in  important  particulars  been 
deserted  in  our  mercantile  policy  since  1865.  I  cannot  admit  that  actual  success 
has  attended  this  change  in  our  customs  policy. 


PEOTECriOX  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


After  having  once  formulated  a  definite  plan  of  action,  its  consum- 
mation was  immediately  undertaken.  The  government  bill  for  the 
restoration  of  protective  duties  had  been  drafted  and  sent  by  mail  to  all 
members  of  the  Reichstag  during  the  Easter  recess.  The  debate,  which 
continued  from  the  second  to  the  twenty -eighth  of  May,  was  opened  with 
a  speech  from  Prince  Bismarck  which  lasted  for  more  than  an  hour. 
Among  other  things  he  said ; 

At  present  there  were  too  many  direct  anil  too  few  indirect  taxes,  and  he  aimed 
at  reversing  this  order.  The  Prince  contended  that  civil  servants  should  not  have 
to  pay  the  income  tax.  Another  mistake  was  the  distinction  made  between  mova- 
ble and  immovable  property.  No  branch  of  industry  was  so  highly  taxed  as  agri- 
culture, and  the  present  indirect  taxation  did  not  give  native  labor  the  protection 
which  it  ought  to  have.  He  would  not  enter  into  the  question  of  free  trade  versus 
protection,  but  one  thing  was  clear,  that,  through  the  widely  opened  doors  of  its 
import  trade,  the  German  market  had  become  the  mere  storage-space  for  the  over- 
production of  other  countries.  They  must,  therefore,  shut  their  gates,  and  take 
care  that  the  German  market,  which  was  now  being  monopolized  by  foreign  wares, 
should  be  reserved  for  native  industry.  Countries  which  were  enclosed  had  become 
great,  and  those  which  had  remained  open  had  fallen  behind.  Were  the  perils  of 
protectionism  really  so  great  as  sometimes  painted,  France  would  long  ago  have 
been  ruined,  instead  of  which  she  was  more  prosperous  after  paying  the  five  mill- 
iards than  Germany  is  to-day.  And  protectionist  Russia,  too — look  at  her  marvel- 
ous prosperity !  Manufacturers  there  had  lately  been  able  to  save  from  30  to  35  per 
cent,  and  all  at  the  cost  of  the  German  market.  The  question  before  them  was  not 
a  political  but  a  financial  one,  and  they  should  put  all  personal  sensibility  aside. 

' '  Let  us  close  our  doors  and  erect  somewhat  higher  barriers, ' '  said  the  Chan- 
cellor, "and  let  us  thus  take  care  to  preserve  at  least  the  German  market  to  German 
industry.  The  chances  of  a  large  export  trade  are  nowadays  exceedingly  precari- 
ous. There  are  no  more  great  countries  to  discover.  The  globe  is  circumnavigated, 
and  we  can  no  longer  find  any  large  purchasing  nations.  Commercial  treaties,  it 
is  true,  are  under  certain  circumstances  favorable  to  foreign  trade;  but  whenever 
a  treaty  is  concluded,  it  is  a  question  of  Qui  trompe-l-on  icif  Who  is  taken  in? 
As  a  rule  one  of  the  parties  is,  but  only  after  a  number  of  years  is  it  known  which 

In  .speaking  of  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  country,  he  said: 

It  is  therefore  not  only  to  the  interest  of  the  farmers,  but  to  that  of  the  entire 
community  that  corn  growing  should  be  maintained. 

It  had  appeared  by  the  report  from  the  government,  which  accom- 
panied the  bill,  that  the  country  was  being  flooded  with  farm  produce 
from  other  countries,  which  was  being  sold  at  very  low  prices,  he  said : 
With  which  home  producers  could  not  compete,  so  that  ruin  stared  them  in  the 

face If  cheap  corn  is  the  goal  at  which  we  should  aim,  we  ought  long 

ago  to  iLive  abolished  the  land  tax,  for  it  burdens  the  industry  which  produces 
corn  at  home,  which  produces  400,000,000  cwts.,  against  the  27,000,000  or  30,000,- 
000  which  wc  import.  But  no  one  has  ever  dreamed  of  such  a  thing;  on  the  con- 
trary, in  times  will  ]i  \\\vuv\  has  been  the  same  as  now,  the  land  tax  has  been  gradually 
increased  thn.u-h.aii  (  ,i niKmy  so  far  as  I  know,  and  in  Prussia  30  per  cent,  since 
1861,  being  im  nasud  Iroiii  thirty  to  forty  million  marks. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 

Speaking  of  the  depression  of  agriculture  and  the  consequences  which 
would  follow  the  destruction  of  this  important  industry  by  free  trade, 
he  said :  ' '  Not  only  agriculture,  but  the  present  State,  and  the  German 
Empire  itself,  would  go  to  ruin."  But  he  regarded  the  German  farmers 
as  wise  enough  to  take  care  of  their  own  interests.  "Twenty  million 
farmers,"  he  said,  "will  not  allow  themselves  to  be  ruined.  It  is  only 
necessary  that  they  should  become  conscious  of  what  is  before  them,  and 
they  will  try  to  defend  themselves  by  legal  and  constitutional  means." 

The  free  trade  forces  were  completely  routed.  They  had  met  an 
intellectual  giant,  one  who  could  expose  all  of  their  dogmas  and  set  the 
misguided  members  of  the  Reichstag  aright.  The  brief  experience  of  the 
German  people  with  the  policy  of  free  trade  had  afforded  examples  which 
proved  the  error  that  had  been  committed  by  the  free  trade  minister  in 
abandoning  the  time-honored  policy  under  which  Germany  had  grown 
great,  and  the  foundation  had  been  laid  for  erecting  the  mightiest  empire 
in  Central  Europe.  The  bill  passed  the  Reichstag  on  July  7,  1879,  by  a 
vote  of  2 1 7  for  and  117  against. 

In  1 88 1,  when  protective  duties  were  further  increased,  Bismarck 
told  the  Reichstag  that,  "in  the  development  of  our  tariff  I  am  deter- 
mined to  oppose  any  modification  in  the  direction  of  free  trade  and  to  use 
my  influence  in  favor  of  greater  protective  and  of  a  higher  revenue  from 
frontier  duties."  In  1885,  when  the  Chancellor  moved  a  still  further 
increase  of  duties  and  extension  of  his  policy,  he  was  able  to  point  to 
definite  results  which  had  followed  the  return  to  protection,  in  the  revival 
of  business  and  the  growth  and  expansion  of  industries  which  were  tak- 
ing place.  Referring  to  the  policy  of  protection,  he  said,  "It  had  freed 
the  country  from  its  poverty  of  blood."  The  exports  of  manufactured 
articles  had  increased  from  1,026,500,000  marks  in  1878  to  1,368,300,000 
marks  in  1 880,  or  33  per  cent.  Wages  and  profits  had  materially  increased. 
By  a  report  of  the  German  iron  and  steel  manufactures  representing 
247  works,  it  appeared  that  the  number  of  artisans  employed  had 
increased  35  per  cent  in  1884,  over  1879.  The  number  of  steamships  had 
increased  from  336  with  a  tonnage  of  183,379  in  1878,  to  650,  with  a 
tonnage  of  413,943  in  1885.  In  1875,  21,472  German  vessels  returned  to 
port  with  a  tonnage  of  2,505,779,  while  the  arrivals  had  by  1885  increased 
to  36,115,  and  the  tonnage  to  4,513,692.  The  tonnage  and  vessels 
outward  showed  a  similar  growth.  The  number  leaving  port  in  1875  was 
18,223,  with  a  tonnage  of  2,076,234,  while  in  1885  there  were  34,211, 
with  a  tonnage  of  3,989,052.  In  1887  the  Association  of  German  Iron 
and  Steel  Manufacturers,  upon  an  investigation  made  into  the  condition 
of  the  industn.'  and  the  effect  of  the  increased  duties  upon  the  emploj'ment 
of  labor,  showed  that  in  January,  1879,  before  the  return  to  protection, 
233  large  iron  and  machine  works  employed  124,262  hands,  and  paid  them 
7,681,291  marks  per  month,  or  61.83  marks  each.     The  contrast  between 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


the  luontli  stated  and  the  same  month  iu  1887  is  most  significant  of  the 
result  which  always  follows  the  application  of  protection.  The  number 
of  employees  had  increased  to  162,320  an  increase  of  38,058,  which 
equals  30.6  per  cent.  The  wages  paid  were  10,740,056  marks  (66.17 
marks  per  head),  an  increase  of  3,058, 765.  Not  only  were  wages  increased 
but  fair  profits  were  returned  for  the  investment  of  capital. 
The  Dusseldorf  Chamber  of  Commerce  reported  that 

We  can  on  the  authority  of  a  searching  investigation  made  in  industrial  circles, 
assert  with  satisfaction  that  the  influence  of  the  customs  tariff  has  on  the  whole, 
been  favorable  to  the  branches  of  industry  affected  by  it  in  this  district.  The  bal- 
ance sheets  of  the  large  establishments,  as  well  as  the  increase  of  work  people, 
afford  ample  evidence  of  this. 

In  speaking  of  the  effect  of  protection,  Mr.  Dawson  says: 

One  swallow  does  not  make  a  summer,  and  one  testimony  to  the  favorable 
effects  of  protection  in  Germany  wo"uld  not  be  conclusive.  But  evidence  on  the 
point  is  abundant.  An  unprejudiced  mind  cannot  but  acknowledge  that,  owing  to 
the  peculiar  economic  position  of  Germany  in  the  last  decade,  protection  was 
eminently  calculated  to  stimulate  and  support  her  industries  and  commerce.  In 
technical  matters  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  practical  experience  and  genius  for 
business  on  the  other,  Germany  was  far  behind  older  rivals  like  England  and 
France.  She  was  only  beginning  to  force  her  way  into  foreign  markets,  while  she 
was  yet  a  great  consumer  of  the  productions  of  other  countries.  In  1878  the  import 
of  industrial  articles  alone  was  570  million  marks;  but  after  the  introduction  of  the 
new  tariff  the  reduction  in  the  first  year  was  395  millions,  or  31  per  cent  less,  while 
during  the  same  period  the  industrial  exports  rose  from  1,026  to  1,368  millions,  or 
33  per  cent  more.  Unlike  England,  Germany  had  industries  to  create,  trade  to 
build  up,  and  she  determined  to  defend  herself  against  the  skill  and  enterprise  of 
older  countries  during  the  period  of  her  industrial  juvenescence  by  submitting  her- 
self to  the  leading-strings  of  protection  until  she  could  with  assurance  and  safety 
walk  alone. ' 

The  Chancellor's  views  on  the  question  of  the  importance  of  agri- 
culture as  a  great  branch  of  productive  industn,-,  is  indicated  in  his 
defence  of  the  lauded  interests  in  1885.  In  the  Reichstag  on  February 
14,  1885,  he  expressed  his  belief  that  the  land-owners  were  the  main- 
stay of  the  Empire,  saying:  "If  you  succeed  in  destroying  this  race  you 
would  see  the  result  in  the  palsying  of  our  entire  economic  and  political 
life." 

It  will  be  noted  that  there  is  being  no  disposition  manifested  on  the 
part  of  the  German  people  to  abandon  agriculture  and  to  open  their  ports 
to  the  free  admission  of  the  farm  products  of  other  countries.  The 
economic  policy  which  is  being  pursued,  involves  the  maintenance  of  all 
the  sources  of  subsistence  and  employment  which  can  be  found  within  the 
borders  of  the  Empire.  The  evils  of  a  one-sided  trade  and  the  loss  which 
would  be  sustained  by  restricting  anj^  of  the  great  fields  of  production,  are 
fully  under.stood.     The  wide  range  of  industrial  pursuits  is  disclosed  by 

1  Bismarck  and  State  Socialism,  p.  oi. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


the  division  of  employments,  which  appeared  by  the  census  of  1882. 
The  population  then  of  45,500,000  was  divided  between  the  various 
occupations  as  follows: 

Agriculture  gave  employment  to  8,500,000  laborers,  with  nearly 
11,000,000  families  and  servants  dependent  upon  them  for  subsistence, 
making  19,500,000  persons  in  all,  or  42.5  per  cent  of  the  total  population. 
6,500,000,  with  10,000,000  dependent  upon  them,  or  16,500,000  in  all,  or 
35.5  per  cent  of  the  total  population  were  occupied  in  manufacturing  and 
other  industries.  In  trade  there  were  1,500,000  with  3,000,000  dependent 
upon  them,  or  a  total  of  4,500,000,  or  10  per  cent  of  the  population.  The 
policy  of  maintaining  agriculture,  as  well  as  manufacturing,  as  a  prin- 
cipal means  of  subsistence,  has  not  in  the  least  been  departed  from.  The 
tariff  law  of  1879  was  amended  May  22,  1885,  by  increasing  the  duties 
on  agricultural  produce.  A  duty  was  imposed  on  wheat,  equivalent  to  71 
cents  for  224  pounds,  and  on  wheat  flour  and  rye  of  $1.70  per  224 
pounds.  Not  only  the  agriculturists,  but  the  millers  are  favored  by  this 
legislation.     By  the  act  of  1887,  the  following  duties  were  imposed: 

Wheat  and  rye, $1.19  per  224  pounds. 

Oats 95        "  " 

Barley, 53        " 

Corn 47        "  " 

Flour  of  wheat  or  rye 2.50        "  " 

Under  the  commercial  treaty  entered  into  between  the  United  States 
and  the  German  Empire,  concluded  January  30,  1892,  American  farm 
products  were  to  be  admitted  into  Germany  under  reduced  duties.  Rye 
and  wheat  flour  at  $1.78  per  220  pounds;  wheat,  83  cents  for  224  pounds. 
United  States  Consul-General  Frank  H.  Mason,  in  speaking  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  German  Government  imposes  import  duties  on  farm  pro- 
ducts, says: 

As  to  the  duty  on  flour  from  other  countries  when  imported  into  Germany  there 
are  three  schedules  as  follows : 

(i)  The  lowest,  $1.78  per  224  pounds,  which  is  conceded  to  the  most  favored 
nations,  which  are,  besides  the  United  States,  the  Argentine  Republic,  Belgium, 
Chile,  Costa  Rica,  France,  Great  Britain,  Hawaiian  Islands,  Italy,  Switzerland, 
Servia,  Spain,  Denmark,  Greece,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Korea,  Turkey,  Dominican 
Republic,  South  African  Republic,  Zanzibar,  Honduras,  Congo  Free  State,  Guate- 
mala and  Paraguay.  All  these  most  favored  nations  enjoy  their  special  privileges 
under  commercial  treaties  which  have  been  in  many  cases  adopted  for  a  specified 
number  of  years,  and  are  therefore  liable  to  be  discontinued  when  they  expire  by  lim- 
itation. There  is  at  present  in  German  politics  a  strong  agrarian  party  which  is 
opposed  to  such  treaties,  in  so  far  as  they  apply  to  agricultural  products;  but, 
despite  this  influence,  the  treaties  with  Roumania  and  Spain  have  been  recently 
renewed,  with  certain  modifications.  Onl)'  four  of  the  nations  in  the  most  favored 
class — Austria-Hungary,  Roumania,  Bulgaria  and  the  .Argentine  Republic — have 
any  considerable  export  of  cereals  to  Germany  which  compete  seriously  with  the 
heavy  imports  from  the  United  States. 


rROTECTJOX  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


(2)  Brazil,  Russia  and  other  countries  not  belonging  to  the  most  favored  class 
are  subject  to  the  standard  duty  of  10.50  marks  ($2.50)  per  224  pounds  on  flour 
when  imported  into  Germany. 

(3)  Since  the  outbreak  of  the  tariff  war  between  Germany  and  Russia  on  the 
first  of  August,  1S93,  the  duty  on  flour  from  the  latter  country  has  been  increased 
50  per  cent,  and  is  now  15.75  marks  ($3.75)  per  224  pounds. 

The  import  duty  on  wheat  from  all  nations  in  the  most-favored  class,  including 
the  United  States,  is  83.3  cents  per  224  pounds;  I1.19  per  224  pounds  from  all  other 
countries,  except  Russia.      It  is  I1.7S  per  224  pounds  when  imported  from  Russia.' 

The  tariff  war  between  Russia  and  Germany  was  brought  to  a  close 
March  16,1894,  when  the  new  commercial  treaty  between  the  two  coun- 
tries was  approved  by  the  Reichstag.  It  admits  Russian  agricultural 
produce  upon  the  same  terms  as  those  of  other  countries.  The  eifect  of 
the  restoration  of  Russian  farm  products  to  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  those 
of  other  countries,  upon  the  prospect  of  a  future  market  for  grain  grown 
in  the  United  States,  was  referred  to  by  Consul- General  Frank  H.  Mason, 
in  his  report  from  Berlin  in  February,  1894,  when  the  negotiations  were 
pending,  which  resulted  in  the  treaty  referred  to.     He  said: 

The  practical  question  is  how  serious  will  be  the  competition  of  Russia  in  these 
and  other  staple  products  should  the  pending  treaty  restore  her  to  commercial  advan- 
tages equal  to  those  of  the  United  States?  Russia  will,  from  the  day  that  the  new 
treaty  takes  effect,  resume  her  old  position  as  the  source  of  supply  of  nine-tenths  of 
the  foreign  rye  used  by  Germany.  The  same  will  be  true,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
of  raw  flax,  certain  kinds  of  lumber  and  timber,  lubricating  oils,  barley,  flaxseed,  and 
number  of  animal  and  mineral  products,  in  all  of  which  the  fields,,  forests  and  mines 
of  Russia  supplement  naturally  and  irresistibly  the  manufactures  of  Germany.  Rye 
is  the  principal  bread  material  for  the  Russian  as  well  as  the  German  peasant,  and  iu 
production  of  that  cereal  Russia  need  fear  no  competition. 

With  regard  to  wheat  the  problem  is  much  more  complicated,  for  the  reason, 
among  others,  that  not  only  Russia,  but  India,  Australia,  the  Argentine  Republic  and 
Uruguay  will  have  to  be, taken  into  account.  To  raise  and  deliver  a  bushel  of  wheat 
in  the  United  States  costs,  according  to  official  estimates,  about  50  cents.  In  India 
the  cost  per  bushel  is  stated  to  be  35  cents,  and  the  danger  from  that  quarter  is 
measured  only  by  the  limit  to  which  the  area  of  culture  can  be  extended.  In  South 
America  this  point  is  not  known  to  have  been  accurately  determined,  nor  are  the 
statistics  of  wheat  export  from  Chile,  Uruguay  and  the  Argentine  Republic  generally 
accepted  as  trustworthy.  But  enough  is  known  to  warrant  the  belief  that  the  wheat 
crop  of  India  and  South  America  is  nearly  if  not  quite  equal  to  that  of  the  United 
States,  and  in  the  Argentine  Republic  at  least  the  area  of  cultivation  is  susceptible  of 
indefinite  extension.^ 

The  purchase  by  Germany  of  foreign  bread  stuffs  is  also  affected  by 
good  or  bad  harvests.  The  uncertainty  of  the  market  from  this  cause  is 
shown  by  the  goverimient  report  of  1894,  from  which  it  appears  that  by 
reason  of  good  crops  in  1893,  the  imports  of  wheat  and  rye  declined  about 
1,000,000  tons;  of  wheat  592,760  tons  and  of  rye  324,337  tons.  In  one 
year  the  purchase  of  various  kinds  of  grains  fell  off  $33,000,000.     The 

I  liiiitcd  stales  Consul  Reports,  Vol.  44,  p.  529.  2  United  States  Consular  Report,  No.  163,  1894, 
p.  678. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


investigations  of  the  United  States  consuls,  made  under  the  direction  of 
the  present  administration,  to  find  foreign  markets  for  American  farm 
products,  have  not  supphed  the  free  trade  party  with  encouraging  reports 
from  Germany. 

The  following  table  shows  the  countries  which  supply  Germany  with 
wheat  and  rye.  The  insignificant  position  occupied  by  the  United  States, 
when  compared  with  other  countries,  especially  Russia,  the  fact  that  the 
American  farmer  is  met  with  competition  from  so  many  sources  when  he 
enters  the  German  market,  should  be  considered  in  weighing  the  indefi- 
nite and  loose  talk  of  free  traders  about  foreign  markets  for  American 
farm  produce. 

Imports  of  Wheat  and  Rye  into  Germany  from  Various  Countries 
IN  1S91. 

Wheat,  1S91.  Rye,  1891. 

Countries.  Bushels.  Bushels. 

Belgium, 1,380,405  543.297 

Bulgaria, 43.063  130.212 

Netherlands 1,015,254  692,874 

Austria-Hungary, 2,750,779  1,426,731 

Roumania, 1,568,416  853,765 

Servia, 242,668  62,453 

Russia, 18,856,759  22,654,506 

Turkey, 88,670  1,081,072 

British  India 882,319  232,984 

Argentine  Republic  and  Patagonia, 453,722 

Brazil,      49.303 

British  North  America, 46.427 

Chile, 272,995 

United  States 5.253,531  2,354,371 

Australia, 97, 700 

France, 668,671 

All  other  countries, 131,313  126,804 

Total, 33,133.324  30,827,740 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  larger  portion  of  this  supply  is  received 
from  European  countries.  When  compared  with  the  home  production  it 
will  be  found  that  the  German  people  are  almost  self-sustaining  in  agri- 
cultural products.  Mr.  Mulhall  shows  that  in  the  value  of  the  principal 
grain  productions  of  $2, 1 10,000,000  in  1888,  German}'  stood  fourth  among 
the  nations  of  the  world,  being  exceeded  only  by  the  United  States, 
Russia  and  France.  As  a  wheat  producing  country  she  also  occupies  the 
fifth  place,  raising  104,000,000  bushels.  On  the  same  basis  of  home  pro- 
duction and  the  import  of  33,000,000  bushels,  the  population  of  49,000,- 
000  consumed  67-100  of  one  bushel  per  head  of  foreign  growth.  The 
statistics  of  the  production  of  rye  are  not  given  separately  by  Mr.  Mulhall 
for  1888;  but  in  the  year  1884  it  appears  that  Germany  stood  second 
among  the  rye  producing  countries,  exceeded  only  by  Russia.  Her  crop 
that  year  v/as  220,000,000  bushels.     In  1888  her  yield  of  barley   was 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


97,000,000  bushels,  placing  her  third  in  the  order  of  nations,  excelled 
only  by  Russia  and  Austria.  She  also  stood  fifth  among  the  nations  iu 
her  oat  crop,  it  being  246,000,000  bushels. 

The  country  is  almost  self-supplying  in  its  consumption  of  meats.  In 
1887'  there  were  produced  710,000  tons  of  beef;  210,000  tons  of  mutton; 
455,000  tons  of  pork,  making  a  total  of  1,375,000  tons,  while  the  total 
consumption  was  1,385,000  tons,  or  only  10,000  tons  in  excess  of  the 
home  supply.  The  production  of  meat  increased  from  900,000  tons  in 
1840,  to  1,375,000  in  1887.  With  this  large  domestic  supply  there  is 
certainly  a  very  limited  market  in  the  Empire  for  American  meat,  and 
what  there  is  must  be  divided  with  other  countries  which  are  competitors 
with  the  United  States.  In  1887  the  exports  of  beef,  mutton  and  pork 
combined  from  the  United  States  was  610,000  tons,  while  Australia 
exported  880,000  tons,  and  the  River  Platte  1,770,000  tons.  The  German 
people  are  not  by  any  means  small  consumers  of  food  products.  In  1887 
they  stood  third,  excelled  only  by  Russia  and  the  United  States  in  the 
consumption  of  grain;  fourth  iu  the  consumption  of  meat;  fourth  in  the 
consumption  of  butter  and  cheese;  third  in  the  consumption  of  sugar; 
first  in  the  consumption  of  potatoes;  and  second  in  the  consumption  of 
tea  and  coffee. 

The  reader  should  examine  the  exports  of  farm  produce  from  Ger- 
many to  England,  in  the  table  .showing  the  imports  of  agricultural  produce 
into  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  countries  from  which  it  is  received.  It 
will  appear  that  in  1894  Germany  exported  to  the  United  Kingdom: 


Wheat,  bushels, 1,334,746 

Barley,  bushels, 1,973,832 

Oats,  bushels, 2,001,312 

Wheat  flour  : 

Corn  Meal,  pounds 27,825,846 

Peas  and  beans,  pounds,  .  .  .  47,827,560 
Butter  and  butterine,  pounds,  .  15,428,560 
Oleomargarine,  pounds, 
Eggs  (great  hundred). 
Honey,  pounds,  .... 
Fruit,  cherries,  plums, 
bushels, 


2,246,944 

3,361,188 

107,520 


353>5io 


Sugar,  unrefined,  pounds,  .  .  564,863,376 
Sugar,  refined,  pounds,.  .  .  .  962,692,528 
Sugar,  glucose,    solid   and 

liquid,  pounds, 11.118,576 

Sugar  molasses,  pounds,  .  .  .  2,240,224 
Tallow  and  stearine,  pounds,  ,      4,535,776 

Hops,  pounds, 1,349,936 

Lard,  pounds 9,162,966 

Wool,  pounds, 2,128  786 

Hemp,  pounds 21,521,920 

Hides,  pounds 7,847,952 

Feathers,  pounds, 866,139 


With  the  encouragement,  through  protection,  which  agriculture  is 
receiving  in  Germany  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  very  extensive  market 
for  American  farm  products,  or  for  those  of  any  other  countr3-.  The 
share  which  American  farmers  might  be  able  to  supply  is  yearly  being 
diminished  by  the  development  of  agriculture  in  South  America,  Australia 
and  e.specially  in  Eastern  Europe  and  Ru.ssia,  This  is  one  of  those  invisi- 
ble "  markets  of  the  world  "  for  farm  products,  which  the  free  traders  of 
the  United  States  have  said  so  much  about  in  recent  years  and  which  they 

'  Mulhall's  Dictionary  of  Statistics,  p  284. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  E3IPIRE. 


have  failed  to  locate.  The  German  people  have  not  onlj-  brought  the  soil 
to  a  high  state  of  cultivation,  but  thej'  have  adopted  the  use  of 
machiner}'  and  all  modern  methods  of  tillage,  although  labor  is  so  cheap 
that  hand-workmanship  is  still  carried  on  to  a  much  greater  extent  than 
in  the  United  States.  We  are  informed  by  United  States  consuls  that  the 
market  for  American  agricultural  implements  and  machinery  is  yearly 
diminishing,  not  because  they  are  going  back  to  the  old  methods  of  culti- 
vation, but  because  German  mechanics  and  manufacturers  are  imitating 
American  inventions  and  engaging  extensively  in  its  manufacture. 
Consul- General  Brewer  in  his  report  from  Berlin,  May  23,  1884,  said  : 

There  is  another  important  question  which  must  not  be  overlooked,  and  that  is 
the  wonderful  genius  of  the  German  mechanics  for  imitating  the  works  of  others, 
which  is  so  perceptible  in  the  case  of  sewing-machines  which  were  invented  by  citizens 
of  our  country.  The  number  of  these  machines  that  are  manufactured  in  Berlin  is 
very  great,  and  stores  are  filled  with  the  Wheeler  &  Wilson,  the  Singer  and  other 
machines  well  known,  and  first  made  in  America.  These  machines,  of  course,  are 
made  here,  and  with  their  cheap  labor  no  American  manufacturer  can  compete  with 
tbe  manufacturer  here.  The  American  horse-rake,  grain  drill,  and  reaper  and  mower, 
with  slight  changes,  manufactured  here,  are  supplying  the  place  of  those  manufac- 
tured by  the  original  inventor  in  the  United  States.  Will  not  this  be  the  case  witli 
other  of  our  machinery  when  placed  upon  the  marketshere  ?  However  much  we  may 
wish  to  extend  our  trade  into  Germany,  we  cannot  refrain  from  considering  this  ques- 
tion. It  is  quite  impossible  for  consuls  to  say  what  machinery  or  production  from  our 
country  would  find  a  market  here.  We  see  in  some  stores  American  goods,  but  as  to 
what  extent  they  are  sold  in  Germany  we  are  unable  to  tell  only  as  we  gather  the 
information  from  statistics  furnished  by  our  government  showing  the  exports  of  such 
goods  to  Gei-many. 

As  Germany  is  now  unquestionably  exporting  agricultural  machinery  to  Russia, 
Africa,  South  America,  etc.,  business  experience  should  tell  us  the  place  to  compete 
with  German  manufacturers  is  in  those  countries,  rather  than  within  their  own  Empire. 

There  was  much  more  agricultural  machinery  imported  into  Germany  twenty 
years  ago,  in  my  opinion,  than  at  the  present  time,  for  Germany  during  that  time  has 
made  a  very  great  advancement  in  the  invention  and  manufacturing  of  mechanical 
and  industrial  appliances,  until  at  the  present  time  a  very  large  proportion  of  farming 
machinery  used  in  the  Empire  is  manufactured  within  its  own  limits,  and  at  the  same 
time  she  is  exporting  agricultural  machinery  to  quite  an  extent  to  Russia,  Bohemia, 
Northern  Africa,  South  America,  etc. 

As  I  have  said,  much  advancement  has  been  made  in  Germany  in  the  manufacture 
of  agricultural  machinery.  At  the  present  time  very  extensive  establishments  for  the 
manufacture  of  such  machinery  exist  at  Berlin,  Magdeburg,  Mayence,  Leipsic,  etc. 
The  one  at  Leipsic  in  1882  employed  575  men,  and  in  1SS3,  780  men.  In  18S2  it  is 
reported  to  have  turned  out  16,351  grain  drills  and  2333  reapers  and  mowers,  and 
much  other  machinery  for  the  use  of  the  farm. 

The  establishment  of  "  H.  F.  Eckert, ' '  an  incorporated  company  at  Berlin,  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  agricultural  machinery,  I  have  just  visited,  and  by  the  courtesy 
of  the  manager  was  shown  through  the  establishment.  This  company  has,  as  I  was 
informed,  some  nine  hundred  men  in  its  employ.  It  manufactures  wagons,  thrashing 
machines,  clover  mills,  fanning  mills,  machinery  for  cutting  and  preparing  beets  for 
sugar  making,  cutting  boxes,  stills  for  making  whisky  from  potatoes,  horse-rakes  and 
plows,  the  latter  upon  a  large  scale  and  of  various  kinds.     I  was  informed  that  the 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


company  was  then  filling  an  order  from  South  America  for  400  plows,  and  was  shown 
some  of  the  plows  intended  for  that  country.' 

Another  fact  to  be  considered  is  the  German  tariff,  which  in  1879 
imposed  duties  on  agricultural  machinery,  viz.:  if  of  wood  the  duty  is  71 
cents  per  220  pounds;  same  if  of  cast  iron;  if  of  wrought  iron  the  duty  is 
$1. 19  per  220  pounds;  if  of  other,  not  precious  metals,  the  duty  is  $1.90 
per  220  pounds.  Hay  and  manure  forks  pay  a  duty  of  $2. 30  per  220  pounds. 
By  a  system  of  protection  extended  through  duties  on  imports  and 
bounties  given  to  producers,  the  production  of  sugar  from  beets  has 
become  one  of  the  most  important  agricultural  industries  of  the  country. 
Here  is  an  example  of  the  establi.shment,  under  protection,  of  anindustry^ 
that  could  not  have  been  planted  on  German  soil  and  built  up  against  the 
competition  of  cane  sugar  producers  of  tropical  regions,  excepting  by 
protection.  Contrary  to  the  reasoning  of  all  free  trade  economists  the 
Germans,  through  years  of  experiments  and  practice,  are  not  only  supply- 
ing their  own  market,  but  have  become  one  of  the  chief  exporting  nations 
of  the  world.  The  effort  on  the  part  of  the  protectionists  in  the  United 
States  to  imitate  the  example  set  by  the  Continent  of  Europe  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  this  industry  by  giving  bounties  to  producers  furnished  one  of 
the  chief  grounds  for  attack  on  the  McKinley  bill.  The  subject  is  of  such 
importance  to  the  American  people  that  the  writer  has  incorporated  the 
following  extracts  from  a  report  by  United  States  Consul  William  D. 
Warner,  to  the  State  Department,  showing  the  growth  of  the  industrj'  in 
Germany  since  1872,  together  with  the  system  of  taxa^tion  and  payment 
of  bounties  which  is  practiced  : 

The  number  of  factories  in  operation  in  the  Khineland,  which  embraces  this  con- 
sular district,  during  the  year  1S90-91  was  eleven,  out  of  a  total  of  four  hundred  and 

one  for  the  whole  of  Germany  during  the  previous  year The  production 

of  raw  sugar  in  Germany  rose  from  186,442  tons  during  the  year  1871-72  to  a  trifle 
over  1,000,000  tons  in  the  year  1890-91.  In  1871-72  it  took  12  kilograms  of  beets  to 
produce  i  kilogram  of  sugar,  while  in  1889-90  it  required  only  8.09  kilograms  to 
produce  i  kilogram  of  raw  sugar. 

Imports. 

The  quantity  of  sugar  imported  during  the  year  into  the  Rhineland  was  298  tons 
of  refined  sugar,  65  tons  of  raw  sugar,  and  30  tons  of  molasses. 

Table  showing  the  imports  0/ sugar  into  Germany  during  the  last  decade. 


882-83 
883-84 
884-85 


5,607 
5.733 
6,601 
5.376 
5.303 


18S8-S9  . 
1889-90  . 


Tons. 

5.774 
4,678 
7,282 
3.924 
3.742 


'  United  States  Consular  Report,  No.  48,  December,  1884,  pp.  501, 502  and  503. 


PBOTECTION  IN  THE  GEB3IAN  EMPIBE. 


Exports. 
Table  showing  the  exports  of  raw  sugar,  candies,  and  other  hard  sugar 


Tons. 

46,218 
71,201 
103,471 
95,161 
221,442 
253.931 
390,702 
491,176 
553.793 
404,071 
489,680 
344,710 
412,424 
493.830 


Tons. 

7,393 
14,001 

19.356 
25.236 
35.378 
39.916 
49.3SI 

64, 246 

76,015 
66,019 
130,378 
132,212 

164,151 
215,736 


other 
hard 
sugar. 


Tons. 

4.342 

8,341 
11.396 

9.705 
2o,68r 
14.413 
24,218 
29,867 
31.S85 
20,568 
23,882 
20,743 
15,650 

9.419 


NEW  Sugar  Law. 
A  new  imperial  law  regarding  the  taxation  of  sugar  was  issued  last  May,  which 
will  go  into  effect  on  the  first  of  August,  1892. 

The  new  law  does  away  with  the  so-called  material  or  weight  tax  on  the  raw  beets 
and  raises  the  consumption  tax  from  12  marks  to  iS  marks  per  100  kilograms,  net,  of 
prepared  sugar.  The  import  duty  on  hard  and  "  fluid  "  sugar  of  all  classes  is  placed 
at  36  marks  per  100  kilograms  Foreign  sugar  imported  under  official  control  for  fur- 
ther manufacture  by  the  sugar  factories  will  pay  only  the  consumption  tax  of  18  marks 
per  100  kilograms. 

Under  the  new  law  a  bounty  is  granted  on  export  sugar  for  a  certain  number  of 
years,  namely,  from  August  I,  1S92,  to  July  31,  1895,  that  is,  sugar  that  has  been  pre- 
pared during  that  period,  as  follows,  on  every  100  kilograms  for  export,  pro\-ided  that 
amount  in  any  case  is  not  less  than  500  kilograms  : 

Marks. 
Class  I — Raw  sugar  containing  at  least  90  per  cent  of  sugar,  and  refined  sugar 

under  98  per  cent  and  not  less  than  90  per  cent  of  sugar, 1.25 

Class  2 — Sugar  candy  and  sugar  in  hard,  white  loaves,  in  blocks,  bars,  cubes,  or 
which  has  been  made  small  in  the  presence  of  the  revenue  officials,  so-called 
crystals  and  other  hard,  white,  cut  sugar  in  crystal  form,  containing  at  least 

99 '4  per  cent  of  sugar,      2.00 

Class  3— All  other  hard  sugar,  also  all  dry  white  sugar  (containing  not  over  i  per 
cent  of  water)  in  crystal,  crumb,  or  flake  form  of  at  least  98  per  cent  of  sugar, 

in  so  far  as  the  same  does  not  come  under  Class  2, r.65 

From  the  first  of  August,  1895,  to  the  thirty-fitst  of  July,  1897,  it  is  as  follows 
on  every  100  kilograms  for  export  : 

Marks. 

Under  Class   i i.oo 

Under  Class  2, .        i  .75 

Under  Class  3, 1.40' 

In  investigating  the  causes  of  the  decline  of  British  trade,  the  Royal 
Commission  heretofore  referred  to,  caused  reports  to  be  made  by  their 
consuls  and  representatives  upon  the  industries  of  the  German  Empire. 

■United  States  Consul's  Report.  No.  137,  February,  1892. 
2S 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


The  reports  upon  the  conditions  as  found  in  1885  disclosed  the  fact  that  a 
marked  improvement  and  expansion  of  German  manufactures  was  taking 
place  under  the  influence  of  protection ;  that  the  home  market  was  not 
only  being  almost  wholly  supplied  with  domestic  wares  which  had  largely 
been  purchased  in  England  prior  to  the  adoption  of  protection ;  but  that 
as  industries  were  established  in  Germany  and  production  extended  to  a 
greater  variety  of  commodities,  British  goods  were  steadily  displaced  b}- 
those  made  at  home ;  hence,  a  decline  in  imports  of  manufactured  goods 
had. taken  place;  while  on  the  other  hand,  the  Germans  were  not  only 
largely  supplying  their  home  market,  but  were  becoming  exporters  of 
competing  commodities,  not  only  to  those  foreign  countries  which  had 
hitherto  been  supplied  from  British  factories,  but  to  the  United  Kingdom 
itself.  The  industrial  changes  which  were  being  brought  about  by  the 
rise  of  industries  in  Germany  under  protection,  presented  the  most  alarm- 
ing feature  of  foreign  competition  which  came  to  the  notice  of  the  com- 
mission. The  ability  of  the  Germans  successfully  to  compete  with  English 
manufacturers  in  neutral  markets,  the  constantly  increasing  surplus  which 
they  were  sending  abroad  each  year,  is  making  it  more  impossible  for  the 
United  States  to  enter  the  field  of  competition  for  a  share  of  the  world's 
markets.  The  reports  of  the  British  Consuls  are  .so  important  upon  this 
subject,  that  the  writer  has  given  below  numerous  extracts  from  them. 

As  to  the  general  condition  of  the  country.  Consul  Charles  Scott,  in 
transmitting  the  reports  from  the  several  districts,  said: 

The  producing  and  consuming  power  of  the  country  is  reported  to  have 
increased  enormously  in  the  last  fifteen  years,  not  to  say  twenty"  years ;  "busine.ss" 
in  the  district  of  the  Consul-General  at  Berlin,  which  includes,  in  addition  to  the 
capital,  the  important  centres  of  Halle  and  Magdeburg,  is  brisk  and  extending 
satisfactoril)'.  In  Westphalia  and  Rhenish  provinces  Mr.  Mulvany  is  able  to  report, 
'a  steady  and  marked  progress  in  the  quality  if  not  in  quantity  of  products  turned 
out,  and  the  producers,  in  spite  of  low  profits,  are  steadily  pushing  them  into  the 
markets  of  the  world,  prepared  to  reap  any  advantage  from  the  rise  of  prices ;  and 
trade  in  this  district  is  described  as  sound  and  healthy."  From  Hamburg  Mr. 
Dundas  reports  that  "trade  of  that  port  has  been  in  recent  years  greatl5'  improved 
and  extended.  "  The  condition  of  Frankfort,  Mr.  Oppenheimer  tells  us,  is  "fairly 
1  and  no  retrograde  movetnent  observable. ' '  Nor,  according  to  Mr.  Reid,  is 
there  "generally  speaking  any  depression  of  trade  in  the  di.strict  of  Stettin  and 
Swinemunde;  it  is  true  that  certain  branches  have  lost  their  former  importance,  but 
since  1881  the  imports,  and  especially  the  exports,  have  steadily  increased,  and  with 
the  exception  of  the  shipping  interests,  every  branch  of  trade  is  in  a  most  flouri.shing 
condition;  the  town  itself  is  rapidly  extending  and  labor  is  well  paid."  In  proof 
of  this  description  he  gives  figures  showing  the  increase  of  private  capital  tax  for 
income,  of  deposits  in  savings  banks,  and  dividends  of  joint  stock  companies.' 

It  is  an  important  fact  that  during  a  period  when  business  was 
regarded  as  brisk,  when  markets  were  extending  and  general  improve- 
ments were  taking  place  under  protection  in  Germany,  as  shown  by  the 
reports  of  official  representatives  to  the  Royal  Commission,  the  evidence 

'  Roy.^l  Coinniission  on  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industry,  Second  Report,  Part  IL,  p.  159. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GER3IAN  EMriFE. 

of  manufacturers,  merchants,  business  men  and  government  officials 
proved  that  the  very  reverse  was  true  of  the  United  Kingdom  under 
free  trade.  The  causes  which  contributed  to  these  opposite  conditions 
could  not  be  found  in  those  influences  which,  apart  from  the  tariff  policies 
of  the  two  countries,  were  operating  upon  the  trade  of  all  nations.  The 
only  complaint  of  adverse  conditions  which  appeared  in  the  reports  to  the 
commission,  to  be  operating  against  prosperity  in  Germany,  arose  from 
over-production,  and  this  seems  not  to  have  gone  beyond  a  limitation  of 
profits  of  producers  of  raw  materials.  Good  prices  and  profits  were  being 
enjoyed  generally  by  manufacturers  of  finished  products,  and  increased 
rewards  were  being  received  by  labor.  The  fact  that  the  productive 
capacity  of  the  nation  had  become  so  augmented  that  a  large  surplus  was 
seeking  buyers  in  foreign  markets,  is  one  that  should  be  understood  by 
the  people  of  the  United  States  before  they  abandon  their  own  home 
market  and  enter  the  field  of  universal  competition.  Mr.  Mulvany 
regarded  the  fall  in  prices  as  having  been  occasioned  by  increased  com- 
petition and  reduced  cost  of  production.  He  says:  "The  very  fact 
that  Germanj'  is  able  to  place  in  fore*n  markets  articles  of  the  same 
description  as  those  she  formerly  drew  from  those  foreign  countries,  is 
sufficient  to  create  an  impression  of  over-production  which  may  not 
reallj'  exist." 

It  would  appear  from  this  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  Consul  that 
so  long  as  Germany  was  able  to  force  her  wares  into  foreign  markets  by 
underselling  British  rivals,  although  an  abundance  was  being  produced 
and  sold  at  low  prices,  yet  it  could  not  be  said  that  as  a  people  they 
were  suffering  from  over-production.  The  changes  which  have  been 
brought  about  during  recent  years,  in  the  decline  in  the  imports  of  manu- 
factured goods,  especially  from  Great  Britain,  and  the  increase  in  the 
export  of  domestic  manufactures,  both  to  the  United  Kingdom  and  to 
other  countries,  was  an  indication  of  the  growth  and  expansion  of  pro- 
ductive industries  which  was  very  satisfactorj'. 

Mr.  Scott  in  reviewing  the  several  reports  from  the  consular  districts, 
upon  the  effect  which  increased  production  in  Germany  is  having  on 
British  trade,  said : 

Mr.  Dundas  also  shows  that  in  regard  to  extension  of  trade  Germany  has  been 
gaining  an  advantage  over  us  in  proportion  of  ten  to  one.  The  next  figures  are 
from  the  Berlin  report.  Mr.  Bleichroder  has  taken  the  total  Hamburg  entries, 
including,  I  presume,  those  hj'  land,  and  shows  that  these  have  increased  in  the 
last  twenty  years  from  1,600,000  tons  to  6,000,000  tons  in  volume,  and  ^^'32, 508,588 
to  ;fi  1 1, 498,337  in  value,  while  the  imports  from  Great  Britain  have  increased  in 
the  same  period  from  616,713  tons  to  1,615,096  tons,  and  ^^9, 999, 322  to  ;£'22,056, 152, 
and  that  the  proportion  of  British  to  total  imports  has  decreased  from  32  per  cent 
to  23  per  cent  in  volume,  and  from  29  per  cent  to  19  per  cent  in  value. 

At  Stettin  the  proportion  of  British  in  the  total  imports  of  that  port  has 
declined  from  45  per  cent  to   38  per  cent,  and  the  proportion   of   British  in  total 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


exports  from  25  per  cent  to  19.95  per  cent.  With  regard  to  these  last  figures  we  find 
that  the  chief  decline  in  British  imports  has  taken  place  in  coal  and  chemical 
products,  while  the  proportion  of  iron  has  increased ;  that  in  the  exports  grain  has 
decreased  enormously,  and  sugar  has  largel}-  increased. 

From  Dusseldorf  we  learn  that  British  imports  into  that  district  have  decreased, 
and  exports  to  Great  Britain  largely  increased,  and  that  native  producers  now 
almost  exclusively  supply  the  home  market  with  articles  formerl)'  imported  from 
Great  Britain,  and  that  they  have  meanwhile  created  many  new  exports  in  the  last 
fifteen  years. 

From  Frankfort  it  is  reported  that  British  imports  of  raw  material  have  heen 
increasing  within  the  last  five  years,  but  those  of  manufactured  goods  decreasing. 

The  statistics  supplied  from  Konigsberg  show  a  slight  increase  in  volume  but 
a  decrease  in  value  of  colonial  goods  imported  from  the  United  Kingdom  in  the 
last  twenty  years,  a  decrease  especially  in  value  of  metal  imports,  and  a  large 
decrease  both  in  volume  and  value  of  textile  imports,  while  mineral  and  mineral 
products  are  being  imported  in  largely  increasing  volume  and  value. 

The  most  marked  feature  in  the  decline  of  British  trade  with  this  countrj- 
would  appear  from  all  the  reports  to  be  the  displacement  in  German  markets  of 
British  by  native  products;  this  has  been  notoriously  the  case  in  the  iron,  chem- 
ical, and  textile  branches  of  trade,  and  has  evidently  been  accomplished  by  native 
producers  working  with  native  capital.^ 

With  the  exception  of  one  instance  cited  bj'  Mr.  Mulvany,  that  of  rolled  iron 
girders  now  imported  from  Belgium  in  his  district  in  preference  to  England,  I  can  find 
no  trace  of  any  diversion  of  British  trade  with  Germany  to  any  other  foreign  country. 

British  agricultural  machinery,  gas  and  boiler  tubes,  household  articles,  such 
as  kitchen  utensils,  tinned  pails  and  baths,  are  being  rapidl)-  displaced  by  German  in 
the  Berlin  district,  but  tin  plates  from  England  are  still  in  great  demand  for  the  manu- 
facture of  packing  cases. 

We  also  hear  of  a  similar  displacement  of  British  coke  and  cement,  but  not  of 
slates,  and  in  the  textile  branch  of  half  and  intermediate  products,  the  lower  num- 
bers of  single  yarns  and  ol  doubles  below  No.  32,  while  the  finer  numbers  of  yarns 
and  sewing  thread,  and  finished  goods,  such  as  superior  woolen  cloths,  meltons, 
diagonals,  etc.,  continue  to  maintain  their  former  position,  as  also  certain  woolen 
and  cotton  fabrics  for  completion  by  printing  or  dyeing  in  Germany,  and  certain 
descriptions  of  carpets. 

In  the  chemical  industry,  British  raw  materials,  acids,  and  especially  soda, 
seem  to  have  been  nearly  entirely  replaced  by  native  products,  and  the  Scotch 
monopoly  in  chromate  of  potash  is  said  to  have  been  broken  by  native  establish- 
ments drawing  their  supplies  from  Russian  and  American  beds,  thus  steadying  and 
reducing  the  price  of  this  commodity  in  the  German  market. 

Mr.  Bleichroder,  Mr.  Oppenheimer  and  Mr.  Dundas  give  us  several  instances 
of  new  establishments  in  the  districts  of  Berlin,  Frankfort  and  Hamburg,  produc- 
ing articles  formerly  imported  from  England,  such  as  factories  for  linoleum,  jute 
and  cloth,  and  in  the  case  of  Hamburg,  British  firms  and  capital  seem  to  have 
been  to  a  certain  extent  engaged  in  them,  as  according  to  Mr.  Dundas,  the  British 
manufacturer,  by  transplanting  his  capital  and  working  material  to  this  countni-, 
has  been  able,  as  in  case  of  the  linoleum  factory  of  Dehnenhorst,  to  effect  a 
saving  of  45  per  cent  in  supplying  the  German  market  and  finds  the  cost  of 
production  in  this  country  about  two-thirds  less  than  in  England.  In  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Berlin  establishments  for  the  manufacture  of  so-called  English  goods, 
waterproof  stuffs,  etc.,  have  driven  the  English  article  out  of  the  field,  and  the 
same  appears  to  be  the  case  to  a  great  extent,  with  the  manufacture  of  so-called 
"mungo"  goods  for  the  hat  trade. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


lu  Frankfort,  many  of  the  articles  formerly  imported  from  Bradford,  Manches 
ter,  Birmingham  and  Sheffield  are  now  turned  out  Ijy  new  German  establishments, 
and  have  so  completely  displaced  their  British  rivals  that  the  former  English  ware- 
houses for  the  retail  of  these  goods  are  rapidly  disappearing. 

The  Dusseldorf  district,  we  learn,  now  manufactures  cutlery  of  so  superior  a 
kind  that  it  is  being  largely  exported  to  England  and  re-exported  thence  to 
America  with  English  marks. 

In  the  textile  branch,  I  am  informed,  several  English  firms  have  set  up  branch 
establishments  with  English  capital  in  this  district  and  in  Silesia  and  the  Rhine 
provinces.  The  following  names  of  such  firms  have  been  given  me:  Messrs 
Oldroyd  &  Blackley,  at  Gruneberg ;  Messrs.  Ch.  Blackburne,  at  Copenick ;  Messrs, 
Naylor  &  Co. ,  at  Wittenburg ;  Messrs.  Berendsen  &  Oldroyd,  at  Sagan ;  Messrs.  Bass, 
Hudson,  Son  &  Co. ,  at  Berlin ;  Messrs.   Crossley,  at  Berlin. 

The  British  producer  is  still  quite  able  to  hold  his  own,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
in  these  markets  with  many  superior  articles  in  all  branches  of  industry ;  but  he 
should  aim  at  still  greater  perfection  of  these  goods  if  he  is  to  continue  to  keep 
ahead  of  the  rapid   improvement  which   is  taking  place   in  German  manufacture. 

On  the  other  hand  I  fear  that  in  many  other  articles,  such  as  shoddy,  jute,  and 
some  Birmingham,  Sheffield,  and  Bradford  articles,  their  displacement  by  native 
products  has  been  so  effective  that  there  is  little  hope  now  of  reversing  their  pres- 
ent position  in  these  markets,  and  a  more  profitable  commercial  interchange  might 
be  effected  were  we  to  endeavor  to  confine  our  chief  supply  to  those  articles  whicl 
have  not  yet  been  outstripped  in  competition  by  German  articles  of  a  similar 
description. 

If  we  are  prepared  to  admit  that  native  industry  and  power  of  competition  have 
been  stimulated  by  protection  against  foreign  imports  of  a  similar  description  to 
staple  German  products,  we  must,  I  presume,  with  the  present  majority  in  this 
country,  be  equally  prepared  to  enumerate  the  new  customs  tariff  among  the  State 
aids. 

The  reports  of  Consuls  from  the  various  districts  which  gave  more 
detailed  information  upon  the  subject,  were  as  follows: 
Mr.  Dundas,  reporting  from  Hamburg  district,  said : 

High  protective  tariffs  undoubtedly  constitute  the  great  impediment  to  the 
extension  of  our  trade.  From  this,  the  root,  spring  other  impediments,  such  as  the 
not  unfrequently  arbitrary  and  unfair  manner  in  which  the  various  classifications  of 
the  tariff  are  constructed,  by  which  goods  which  should  properly  come  under  a 
class  paying  a  comparatively  low  rate  of  duty  are,  by  being  brought  under  another 
and  higher  class,  made  to  pay  a  much  higher  rate,  thus  effectually  raising  an 
in.surmountable  impediment  to  competition  with  native  goods. 

British  cement  in  one  part  of  this  district  has  been  entirely  supplanted  by 
native  manufacture.  The  decrease  in  the  importation  ■  of  this  article  commenced 
about  the  year  1878,  in  which  year  the  amount  was  about  40,000  casks.  This 
declined  in  the  next  five  years  down  to  8000  casks,  since  which  date  it  has  ceased 
to  be  of  any  appreciable  extent.  A  transfer  of  trade  with  Great  Britain  may  also  be 
said  to  have  taken  place  by  the  increased  facilities  of  communication  with  other 
countries  by  means  of  the  establishment  of  direct  regular  lines  of  steam  vessels 
through  which  the  direct  importation  of  raw  produce  has  been  effected,  thus  dimin- 
ishing the  indirect  shipments  of  such  goods  through  British  ports.  This  kind  of 
"transfer  of  trade"  is  in  future  likely  to  increase  with  the  establishment  of  new  lines 
of  steamers  to  transatlantic  countries.  | 


PROTECTION  IX  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Factories  for  jute,  linoleum  and  cloth,  articles  formerly  almost  exclusively 
imported  from  Great  Britain,  have  been  established  in  this  district  by  both  British 
and  German  capital. 

By  establishing  a  factory  on  this  side  a  saving  of  45  per  cent  can  be  effected, 
while  the  cost  of  production  is  about  two-thirds  less  than  in  England.  In  the  lin- 
oleum factory  at  Dehnenhorst,  British  capital  is  invested  to  a  considerable  extent. 
Portland  cement  is  made  in  several  factories  founded  by  German  subjects  with 
German  capital  on  the  banks  of  the  Elbe,  almost  entirely  supplanting  the  Britisli 
production  of  this  manufacture.' 

Mr.  Oppenheimer,  Her  Majesty's  Consul-General  at  Frankfort,  said: 

Noteworthy  establishments  have  arisen  in  the  southwest  and  west  of  Germany, 
and  an  increase  has  taken  place  in  the  production  of  certain  articles  formerly 
bought  in  England.     The  following  may  be  mentioned  as  examples: 

1.  The  chemical  industry,  particularly  aniline  and  alizarine  dyes,  which  seem 
to  have  been  brought  to  a  greater  state  of  perfection  than   in  England. 

2.  The  textile  industry  (jute  and  shoddy  stuffs),  which  through  the  high  tariff 
has  ousted  the  English  market.  * 

Mr.  Mulvany,  Her  Majesty's  Consul  at  Dusseldorf,  said: 

These  provinces  not  only  now  supply  their  own  requirements  and  the  require- 
ments of  Germany  with  products  and  manufactures,  which  some  few  years  ago  were 
imported  from  England  or  elsewhere,  but  export  these  very  products  and  manufac- 
tures not  only  to  the  markets  of  the  world  in  competition  with  England,  but  to 
England  itself.  These  are  well-known  facts  to  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of 
both  countries,  which  may  be  difficult  to  prove  through  the  labyrinth  of  statistics, 
especially  as  its  exports  and  imports  to  and  from  England  pass  through  other  coun- 
tries, Belgium,  Holland,  or  France,  but  they  are  notorious  facts  which  go  beyond  a 
doubt  to  show  the  turn  of  the  tide.  Quantity  has  after  all  not  so  much  to  do  with 
the  depression  ;  the  mere  offering  of  goods  as  products  for  sale,  say  in  England,  which 
were  formerly  only  exported  from  that  country,  must  cause  a  depression  of  prices 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  quantity  offered  for  sale. 

With  reference  to  the  progress  in  trade  and  industry  of  Germany,  the  following 
translation  of  the  remarks  published  by  the  secretary  of  a  great  and  influential 
association  for  the  promotion  and  protection  of  the  industrial  interests  of  the 
Rhenish  and  Westphalian  provinces,  may  be  of  interest.     He  writes : 

' '  As  one  now  reads  frequently,  even  in  foreign  newspapers,  that  wherever  there 
is  a  suitable  place  in  the  market  of  the  world,  Germans  are  to  be  found,  who  pros- 
per and  advance  in  consequence  of  their  acknowledged  good  capabilities,  we  must 
therefore  assume  that  the  Germans  are  not  inferior  to  the  American  or  English  in 
initiative  experience,  or  as  practical  men.  We  especially  arrive  at  this  favorable 
conclusion  when  we  consider  that  the  Germans  have  only  within  a  comparatively 
short  time  enjoyed  abroad  that  support  which  a  powerful  '  Vaterland'  gives  its 
sons,  an  advantage  which  especially  Englishmen  have  enjoyed  for  centuries  in  the 
most  favorable  manner  imaginable. ' ' 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  above  remarks,  which  are  a  sign  of  the  times, 
that  the  American  is  placed  before  the  Englishman,  which  is  proof  that  the  Ger- 
mans look  upon  America  as  a  more  formidable  mercantile  power  than  England, 
and  now  even  in  England  as  well  as  here,  we  look  to  any  improvement  in  America 
as  opening  out  a  prospect  of  a  better  state  of  things  in  Europe;  does  not  this  look 

'  Royfll  Commission,  Second  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  16S.  »  Royal  Commission,  Second  Report, 
Part  n.,  p.  169. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GEB3IAN  E3IPIKE. 

very  much  as  if  Great  Britain  zvere  being  left  behind  in  the  great  mercantile  race  of 
the  -world,  and  does  not  it  suggest  lue  should  look  at  home  for  the  cause  of  this  loss  of 
ground  ? 

There  agaiu  are  notorious  facts  which  require  no  figures  to  prove,  and  whilst 
we  are  occupied  in  studying  endless  volumes  of  figures  and  statistics,  this  tremen- 
dous revolution  in  trade  and  commerce  threatens  to  sweep  away  the  old  familiar 
landmarks  of  industry. 

This  centre  of  industry  is  but  young  in  the  industrial  world,  and  has  been 
established  zvith  all  the  advantages  of  improved  science  and  means  of  communication, 
based  upon  the  past  experience  gained  in  England,  with  a  great  home  market  and 
adjoining  countries  to  supply ;  so  that  with  low  railway  and  water  freights,  and 
moderate  protective  duties,  it  is  only  as  yet  necessary  here  to  look  to  an  over  sea 
export  trade  as  a  means  of  selling  a  comparatively  small  surplus  quantity  not 
required  for  the  home  market. 

Still,  owing  to  the  wise  policy  of  the  government  in  giving  up  the  experiments 
of  free  trade  and  the  anomaly  of  increased  railway  freights  in  connection  there- 
with, and  also  owing  to  the  purchase  and  management  of  the  railways  by  the  State, 
the  material  welfare  of  the  working  classes,  especially  in  this  district,  within  the 
last  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  has  improved  immensely,  and  I  think  I  am  quite  safe 
in  saying  that  the  national  wealth  of  the  country  at  large  has  decidedly  increased, 
so  that  it  can  no  longer  be  said  with  truth  that  Germany  is  a  "  poor  country-. ' ' 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  British  coal-owners,  ironmasters,  and  manufacturers  have 
been  a  little  too  self-confident  in  their  superiority,  have  been  resting  on  their  well- 
earned  laurels,  and  relying  on  this  prestige  have  not  sufficiently  informed  them- 
selves as  to  the  progress  being  made  by  their  neighbors,  who  are  now  able  to 
produce  better  wares  and  articles  in  many  branches  of  industry  than  are  produced 
in  England;  for  instance,  rolled  iron  girders  of  certain  dimensions  used  in  England 
for  building  and  other  purposes  are  supplied  almost  entirely  by  Belgium ;  there  are 
certain  classes  of  plate  iron  and  cast  steel  made  in  this  country  which  English 
manufacturers  and  engine  builders  have  informed  me  are  superior  to  any  made  in 
England,  and  for  "ship  building  purpo.ses  the  German  plate  steel  and  iron  is  pre- 
ferred to  English ;  in  Germany,  at  least  at  Stettin  and  Kiel,  higher  prices  are 
charged  and  paid  for  vessels  built  with  German  than  with  English  plates;  on  the 
other  hand,  the  English  and  Scotch  cast  iron  is  still  superior  to  German.  I  remem- 
ber the  time  when  we  found  it  cheaper  and  better  to  get  all  the  engines,  machinery, 
pumps,  cast-iron  tubing,  etc.,  etc.,  which  we  required  for  the  Hibernia,  Shamrock 
and  Erin  Collieries  in  Westphalia,  from  England;  at  present  even  English  people 
here  would  not  dream  of  importing  heavy  machinery  or  castings  from  any  countrj- 
into  Germany,  not  merely  on  account  of  the  German  import  duty,  but  because  the 
machinery  produced  here  is  of  quite  as  good  a  quality  and  at  as  cheap  a  price  as  in 
England. 

German  cutlery  is  largely  exported,  a  good  deal  of  it  to  England,  from  whence 
it  is  again  exported  as  English ;  English  merchants  purchase,  for  instance,  cutlery 
in  Solingen,  not  far  from  Dusseldorf,  for  export  to  America,  where  possibly,  being 
stamped  with  an  English  name,   it  passes  for  English  ware. 

In  Westphalia,  cla.ss  for  class,  there  is  coal  equal  to  the  best  English,  and  were 
my  father's  idea  of  the  seaworthy  river  steamers  carried  out  to  the  extent  he  pro- 
posed, there  is  no  reason  why  Westphalian  coal  should  not  be  supplied  to  London ; 
it  is  a  mere  matter  of  freights;  were  the  Rhine-Elbe  Canal  constructed  and  of 
proper  dimensions,  Westphalian  coal  could  be  exported  to  England  and  Ireland  with 
advantage. 

Notwithstanding  the  enormous  increase  of  production  of  coal  in  the  Dortmund 
district  from  1858  to  1884,  it  appears  to  me  absurd  to  talk  of  over-production  here 


Great 

industrial 
progress. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


so  long  as  English  coal  is,  as  at  present,  imported  into  Germany,  even  up  to  Ber- 
lin. The  simple  fact  is  the  Germans  have  not  yet  gone  far  enough  in  the  reduc- 
tion of  freights,  and  have  not  constructed  the  necessary  main  canals  so  as  to  get 
water  freights. 

The  production  of  coal  in  the  Dortmund  district  was : 

Production.  Value. 

Year.  Tons.  Marks.  Number  of  Workmen. 

1858.    .     .     .     4.023,427  34,293,627  31,455 

1884.     .     .     .23,403,258  134,959,768  100,953 

The  production  of  coal  in  the  Saarbrucken  district  where  the  coal  mines  are 
the  property  of,  and  worked  by,  the  State,  was : 

In  the  year  1S58 1,815,309  tons. 

In  the  year  1884 •  5,873, 235  tons. 

Answers  supplied  to  Mr.  Scott  by  an  English  gentleman,  established  in  a  large 
business  in  Berlin : 

1.  The  rate  of  wages  for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  in  the  Berliu  district  is  15 
to  25  per  cent  above  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years.  This  increase  has  been 
caused,  owing  to  the  Germans,  in  consequence  of  late  successful  wars,  having  come 
to  a  sense  of  their  own  importance. 

2.  The  quantity  of  work  produced  is  greater. 

3.  The  quality  of  work  is  a  great  deal  better  in  every  branch  of  trade. 

4.  The  specific  rate  of  wages  in  the  Berliu  district  is  as  follows; 

For  skilled  labor 30  to  50  pfg.  per  hour. 

For  unskilled  labor 20  to  25  pfg.  per  hour. 

Rhine  Provinces: 

For  skilled  labor 25  to  35  pfg.  per  hour. 

For  unskilled  labor 18  to  20  pfg.   per  hour. 

Breslau : 

For  skilled  labor :  30  to  45  pfg.  per  hour. 

For  unskilled  labor 15  to  20  pfg.   per  hour. 

5.  The  hours  of  labor  average  ten  to  eleven  daily. 

6.  A  steady  decrease  in  the  importation  of  goods  from  Great  Britain  has  taken 
place  in  the  last  twenty  years.  This  is  occasioned  by  the  difficult  position  in 
which  purchasers  here  are  often  placed,  owing  to  the  combination  of  trades  unions 
in  England  and  the  strikes,  which  so  frequently  occur,  rendering  it  impossible  for 
such  buyers  to  obtain  the  goods  they  require. 

German  purchasers  have,  therefore,  been  necessarily  compelled  to  open  manu- 
factories here,  owing  to  the  cheapness  of  labor,  the  steadiness  and  sobriety  of  Ger- 
man workmen.  English  manufacturers,  after  the  strikes  are  over,  are  unable  to 
recover  lost  ground.' 

The  report  of  H.  D.  Macdonell  shows  a  decline  in  the  imports  from 
Great  Britain  to  Bavaria,  of  various  articles  of  manufactures,  caused  by 
home  production  and  supplies  from  various  parts  of  the  German  Empire, 
of  agricultural  implements  and  machinery  in  general.     He  says: 

Bavarian  factories  have  of  late,  however,  devoted  considerable  attention  to  tlu- 
construction  of  every  part  of  agricultural  machines,  and  traction  engines,  etc.,  for 
'  Royal  Cominissiou,  Second  Report,  Part  II.,  p.  169. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 

which  there  is  considerable  demand,  and  a  fair  amount  of  success  appears  to  attend 

the  new  branch  of  industrj'.      The  importation  of  railway  locomotives  has  altogether 

ceased. 

*        Saxon  and   Swiss   firms  are  using  every  endeavor  to  supplant   England    in   the 

supply  of  spinning  machines,  and  their  efforts  have  been  partially  successful. ' 

With  reference  to  cotton  yarns,  after  describing  the  establishment  of 
mills  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  the  utilization  of  water-power,  the 
attraction  of  labor  from  agriculture  to  this  industry,  and  the  employment 
from  England  of  the  services  of  spinning  masters  and  skilled  workmen, 
he  says : 

After  passing  through  the  severe  commercial  crisis  caused  by  the  American  war, 
this  trade  suffered  greatly  in  1S70,  in  consequence  "of  a  reduction  of  foreign  yarns, 
the  more  so  as  this  duty  was  levied  by  weight  and  not  ad  valorem,  thus  the  impor- 
tation of  English  yarns  increased  to  such  an  extent  as  to  check  altogether  the  spin- 
ning of  high  numbers,  and  manufacturers  had  to  fall  back  twelve  numbers  in 
fineness — English  system.  The  incorporation  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  by  which  the 
production  was  at  once  doubled,  led  to  the  passing  of  higher  protective  duties,  and 
from  that  time  the  import  has  declined,  while  the  home  production  has  correspond- 
ingly increased,  and  the  manufacture  has  again  risen  eight  numbers  in  fineness. 

The  struggle  of  the  home  industry  against  the  English  spinners  has  been  going 
on  for  a  long  period.  During  the  last  few  years  it  has  become  a  general  complaint 
that  the  over-production  in  Great  Britain  causes  heavy  quantities  of  yarns  to  be 
thrown  upon  the  German  market  at  short  intervals,  which  are  sold  at  ruinously  small 
prices;  this  will  account  for  the  slight  augmentation  in  imports,  but  the  spinning 
trade  of  the  country  does  not  appear  to  have  been  thereby  materially  affected. 

Up  to  the  year  1879  large  quantities  of  lace  were  imported  from  England. 
"But,"  says  Mr.  Macdonell,  "the  increase  of  duties  to  five  times  its  former 
rate  and  the  establishment  of  lace  factories  in  Bavaria  itself  have,  of  necessity, 
materially  diminished  the  supply  from  Great  Britain.  " 

The  production  of  pig  iron,  steel  ware,  sewing  machines  and  many 
other  articles  underwent  the  same  change.  Another  fact  disclosed  by 
this  report  is  the  increase  of  direct  trade  which  is  springing  up  between 
Bavaria  and  countries  other  than  Great  Britain,  in  the  purchase  of  raw 
materials,  which  formerly  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  British. 
Growth  is  also  shown  in  the  production,  in  Bavaria,  and  in  the  export 
of  a  great  variety  of  manufactured  articles,  besides  great  improvements 
in  agriculture  and  especially  in  the  dairy  products,  which  are  being  largely 
exported.  In  .speaking  of  the  general  effect  of  protection  on  the  industrial 
life  of  the  country,  Mr.  Macdonell  further  says: 

So  long  as  Bavaria  remained  almost  exclusively  an  agricultural  country,  there 
was  a  larger  supply  of  capital  than  was  required  at  that  period,  consequently  the  first 
State  loans  were  effected  at  par,  or  at  a  slight  premium,  with  interest  ranging  from 
2  to  3'/^  per  cent.  Later  on,  however,  when  capital  became  necessary  to  establish 
and  develop  the  manufactures,  the  disposable  amount  was  found  to  have  diminished 
to  such  an  extent  that  the  average  rate  of  interest  rose  to  5  and  6  per  cent.  The 
rapid  development  of   Bavarian  industry,  however,  proved   of   immense  value,  not 


Royal  Comn 


,  Thiril  Report,  p.  43S. 


PROTECTION  IK  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 

only  to  the  country  itself,  but  also  to  enhance  the  material  advantages  which 
Germany  derived  from  the  war  of  1870-71,  and  led  to  a  complete  change  in  the 
financial  condition  of  the  country.  The  interest,  for  instance,  on  the  whole  of  the 
national  debt,  and  for  nearly  all  the  municipal  loans  issued  at  4)4  and  5  per  cent, 
could  without  difficulty  have  been  and  was  reduced  to  4  per  cent.  It  maj'  be 
fairly  concluded  that  at  the  present  moment  very  little  capital  is  required,  and  the 
supply  would  fully  meet  any  reasonable  call. 

The  wages  of  farm  and  ordinary  laborers  have  increased  in  proportion  to  the 
higher  prices  now  paid  for  the  necessaries  of  life,  compared  with  the  period  when 
Bavaria  first  began  to  give  her  attention  to  trade  and  industry. 

The  chief  impediments  to  the  extension  of  commercial  relations  between  Bavaria 
and  Great  Britain  are,  firstly,  the  high  freights  charged  upon  all  articles  of  trade; 
and  secondly,  the  increasing  duties  upon  goods  imported  into  Germany,  and  which 
duties  are  unmistakably  intended  to  hamper  the  introduction  of  English  products. 

The  only  adequate  measure  which  can  be  used  to  counteract  the  action  of  the 
German  Government  would  be  the  adoption  of  the  policy  it  now  vigorously  carries 
out,  i.  e. ,  to  extend  an  adequate  amount  of  protection  against  the  importation  of 
German  goods,  which,  if  not  checked,  bids  fair  to  prove  highly  prejudicial  to 
British  trade. 

It  may  be  further  observed  that  the  development  of  Bavarian  industries  has  in 
a  great  measure  rendered  the  country  independent  of  foreign  supplies,  especially  as 
regards  textile  fabrics,  iron,  steel,  and  colors,  and  the  trade  from  Great  Britain  in 
these  goods  has  decidedly  diminished.  This  decline  cannot  be  attributed  to  a 
reduced  capacity  for  supply  on  the  part  of  England,  but  British  firms  have  of  late 
taken  less  interest  in  the  introduction  of  new  branches  of  trade,  and  have,  perhaps, 
also  shown  themselves  less  scrupulous  in  the  quality  they  supply.  There  are,  more- 
over a  considerable  number  of  Germans,  who  by  long  residence  in  England  or  in  her 
colonies,  have  acquired  not  only  steady  and  business-like  habits,  but  also  such 
knowledge  and  experience  of  our  commercial  requirements,  as  eriable  them  to  carry 
on  a  large  export  trade  in  the  British  possessions. 

Although  a  densely  populated  countr}',  with  the  labor  market  already 
overcrowded,  wages  have  not  only  advanced,  but  increased  employment 
has  been  given  since  protection  was  established.  The  greatest  improve- 
ment in  the  material  condition  of  the  masses  of  the  German  people  has 
occurred  since  the  formation  of  the  ZoUverein.  Wages  not  only  advanced 
as  factories  were  built,  but  the  overcrowded  rural  population  was  relieved 
and  found  an  outlet,  as  the  cities  and  industrial  centres  grew.  Protection 
gave  to  Germany  not  only  a  diversity  of  industries,  but  a  diversity  of 
employments,  and  greatly  increased  the  opportunities  for  the  people  to 
get  work.  It  would  seem  that  such  industrial  expansion  was  absolutely 
necessary  in  a  nation  like  Germany,  having  a  superabundance  of  labor. 
To  utilize  the  laborers  and  turn  them  to  the  best  advantage  to  themselves 
and  to  the  nation,  was  a  part  of  the  economic  policy  of  List  and  Bismarck. 
The  protectionists  of  Germany  saw  how  unwi.se  it  would  be  to  leave  the 
coal  and  iron  mines  unworked,  and  the  natural  resources  of  the  country 
undeveloped,  when  under  the  stimulus  and  encouragement  which  might 
be  given  to  capital  and  lal)or,  they  would  burn  German  instead  of  Briti.sh 
coal,   work  up   their  own    iron,   supply    their  home   market    and   make 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GER3IAN  EMPIRE. 


Germany  a  bus}',  rich  and  prosperous  country.  If  the  benefits  to  be  derived 
from  the  policy  of  protection  should  be  measured  alone  by  the  increased 
employment,  advance  in  wages  and  general  improvements  which  have 
been  brought  about  to  the  laborers  of  Germany,  it  would  sufficiently 
justify  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  of  protection.  It  is  equally  certain  that 
even  with  the  abundance  of  labor  and  the  low  wage  rate  which  prevailed, 
the  industrial  progress  which  has  taken  place  could  not  have  been  made 
under  free  trade.  The  capital  of  the  country  was  almost  wholly  invested 
in  occupations  other  than  manufacturing.  The  people  almost  as  a  whole 
were  engaged  in  farming.  Large  land-owners  held  the  title  to  the  soil, 
while  the  masses  were  rural  laborers,  living  in  a  condition  bordering  on 
serfage.  Capitalists  could  not  be  induced  to  embark  in  manufacturing  in 
the  face  of  the  vigorous  British  competition  that  would  be  waged  against 
them,  especiallj' when  they  would  not  only  be  compelled  to  become  familiar 
with  the  processes  of  manufacturing  themselves,  but  at  the  same  time  to 
educate  and  convert  into  artisans  unskilled  rural  laborers.  These  were 
the  difficulties  which  necessarily  forced  Germany  to  raise  a  barrier  of 
protection  to  encourage  and  protect  capital  invested  in  manufacturing. 
This  done,  foreign  rivals  were  gradually  driven  from  the  field,  and  as 
home  industries  made  headway  year  by  year,  the  expansion  went  on,  and 
manufacturing  was  extended  to  the  making  of  everj-thing  necessary  to 
supply  the  German  people.  As  new  factories  were  built,  more  employ- 
ment was  given  to  labor.  The  encouragement  and  confidence  inspired  by 
protection,  invited  not  only  German,  but  English  capital,  still  further  to 
augment  German  industries.  The  result  could  only  be  a  vast  increase  in 
the  employment  of  labor,  at  better  wages.  Upon  the  question  of  larger 
employment  and  increased  wages,  we  have  the  most  reliable  authority. 

The  reports  of  British  Consuls  to  the  Royal  Commission  of  Trade 
and  Industry  in  1885,  upon  the  condition  of  labor  and  rates  of  wages  in 
Germany,  furnish  very  interesting  and  reliable  data  upon  this  subject. 
The  plan  adopted  by  the  Royal  Commission  for  investigating  the  changes 
which  had  taken  place  in  the  wage  rate  of  the  United  Kingdom  during 
the  period  of  twenty  years,  between  1864  and  1884,  was  extended  to  Ger- 
many. It  is  very  interesting  to  note  that  the  reports  from  Germany 
were,  that  an  increase  of  wages  had  taken  place  during  the  time  referred 
to.  While  this  had  universally  occurred  throughout  the  German  Empire, 
in  the  majority  of  instances  wages  had  fallen  in  England  during  the  same 
time.  But  the  most  marked  feature  of  the  industrial  question  was  dis- 
closed by  the  fact  that  while  increased  employment  was  the  result  of  pro- 
tection in  Germany,  lack  of  employment  occasioned  to  a  great  extent  by 
the  import  of  competing  commodities,  was  the  mo.st  serious  injury  which 
had  befallen  the  laborers  of  England,  through  free  trade. 

Mr.  Dundas  reported  from  Hamburg  that  Professor  Soetbeer  had 
shown  that  between   1848-51  and  1879-85   wages  had  increased  98  per 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 

cent,  So  per  cent,  and  85  per  cent  (alternately).  The  wages  paid  for  road- 
building,  to  skilled  labor,  had  increased  in  some  instances  226  per  cent. 
Speaking  of  the  consular  district  which  he  represented  (Hamburg)  Mr. 
Dundas  said;  "In  this  district  wages  have  presumably  risen  in  the 
same  proportion." 

Mr.  Oppenheimer,  Consul-General  at  Frankfort,  said:  "The  wages 
for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  are  over  the  average  of  the  last  twenty 
years.  The  quantity  as  well  as  the  quality  of  the  work  has  similarly 
risen.  The  former  through  the  introduction  of  machines,  and  the  latter 
through  the  improved  training  which  workmen  have  received. ' ' 

Mr.  Mulvany,  in  his  consular  report  from  Dusseldorf,  said: 

Production  in  the  main  branches  of  industry  has  continued  steadily  to  increase, 
and  with  it  the  demand  for  skilled  labor  and  rates  of  wages.  So  that  in  this  dis- 
trict a  good  workman  is  sure  to  find  employment,  and  even  the  common  laborer 
earns  2.?.  6d.  (60  cents)  a  day.  Higher  class  of  workmen,  4.?.  to  5.9.  (96  cents  to 
j(i.  20)  a  day  of  ten  hours.  .  .  .  The  present  rate  of  wages  both  for  skilled  and 
unskilled  labor  exceeds  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years. 

From  other  districts  the  following  reports  were  given: 

Offe?ibach  Report. 

"They  are  (wages),  as  regards  unskilled  labor,  above  the  average  of 
the  last  twenty  years,  whereas  skilled,  and  especially  good  work,  has 
commanded  prices  approaching  the  very  highest  hitherto  paid." 

Report  from    Worms. 

"Wages  for  both  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  are  above  the  average 
of  the  last  twenty  years,  and  range  between  2  and  2^  marks  for  unskilled 
labor,  and  between  2%  and  5  marks  for  skilled  labor  per  day,  consisting 
almost  universally  of  ten  hours." 

Report  from  Ma>i7iheim. 

"The  rate  of  wages  has  risen  above  the  average,  being  at  present 
from  2  marks  to  3.50  per  day  of  ten  working  hours." 

The  general  increase  which  was  shown  by  the  reports  quoted  in  1885 
has  continued  until  the  present  time.  The  report  of  Sir  E.  B.  Malet  to 
the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  from  Berlin,  August  8,  1891,'upon  the  present 
state  of  the  labor  question  in  Germany,  shows  that  the  returns  of  the  Ger- 
man factory  inspectors  for  1890  exhibit  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
hands  employed.  In  the  district  of  Oppeln,  the  number  employed 
increased  from  110,268  in  1886,  to  139,406  in  1890;  in  the  Kingdom 
of  Saxony,  from  321,629  in  18S8,  to  340,498  in  1S89;  in  the  Grand 
Duchy  of  Oldenburg,  10,253  in  1888,  to  11,284  in  1889.     The  report  says: 

1  Foreign  Official  Miscellaneous  Series,  1891,  No.  212, 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 

"The  increase  of  the  work-people  employed  in  the  district  of  Berlin- 
Charlottenburg,  amounted  to  15,225,  from  1889  to  1890.  There  now 
exist  5 1 86  factories  in  the  district,  with  a  total  of  159,505  hands." 

The  increase  in  Brelan  and  Liegnitz  (Silesia)  was  1 1  per  cent  from 
1880  to  1890,  or  from  141,399  to  157,340.  A  similar  increase  occurred  in 
the  district  of  Mersburg  and  Erfurt,  from  73,313  in  1888,  to  92,136  in 
1890.  Mr.  Malet  says  that  the  yearly  increase  in  the  work-people  employed 
has  been  5  per  cent  and  that  the  number  has  risen  from  4,500,000  in  1882, 
to  7,000,000  in  1890. 

Upon  the  question  of  an  advance  in  wages,  Mr.  Malet  says; 

During  the  year  1888-89  ^  general  rise  of  wages  took  place  in  most  of  the 
•German  industiial  districts.  The  report  for  the  district  of  Potsdam-Frankfort-on- 
Oder,  states  that  with  the  exception  of  the  textile  industries,  a  rise  of  10  per  cent 
to  25  per  cent  in  wages  was  observed.  In  the  district  of  Dusseldorf,  the  rise  in 
many  cases  was  over  15  per  cent.  In  the  district  of  Leipsic,  the  improvement  is 
especially  noticeable  in  the  engineering  trade,  the  average  rate  being  40  pf.  to  45 
pf.  [^}{d.  to  sVxd.  )  per  hour,  as  against  27  pf.  to  35  pf.  in  former  years.  In  one 
engineering  establishment,  the  average  weekly  wage,  which  three  years  ago  was  20 
marks  (^i),  has  risen  to  from  23  to  25  marks  {£1  55.  ),  and  the  prices  paid  for 
piece-work  have  increased  to  a  corresponding  extent. ' 

On  the  foHowing  page  is  a  table  of  wages  paid  in  the  district  of 
Potsdam-Frankfort-on-Oder,  for  the  years  1882  and  1889;  copied  from 
the  report  of  Sir  E.  B.  Malet,  to  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  Augu.st  8,  1891. 

We  have  further  information  upon  this  subject  contained  in  the 
report  on  Germany,  to  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor,  in  June  1893, 
by  Mr.  Geoffrey  Drage,  in  which  he  says:  "The  wages  for  Germany 
have  shown  a  great  increase  since  1850,  in  some  cases  as  much  as  60  per 
cent,  and  the  co.st  of  production  has  not  sensibly  increased."  ^ 

An  economic  policy  under  which  such  benefits  can  be  achieved,  even 
in  a  country  where  excessive  competition  prevailed  among  the  laborers, 
cannot  be  overthrown  by  contentions  based  on  theoretical  and  speculative 
reasoning.  The  results  which  have  followed  the  adoption  and  practice  of 
the  policy  of  protection  in  Germany,  as  well  as  in  all  other  cotmtries 
where  it  has  been  tried,  fully  vindicate  its  wisdom,  while  proving  the 
benefits  which  are  to  be  derived  from  it. 

Not  only  has  the  foreign  trade  of  Germany  greatly  increased  since 
the  return  to  protection,  but  its  character  is  being  reversed.  Instead  of 
buying  a  large  quantity  of  fully  manufactured  goods  each  year,  she  is 
buying  less  and  has  become  an  exporter  of  those  wares  and  articles  which 
were  formerly  purchased.  The  trading  classes  are  now  more  largely 
dealing  in  and  making  their  profits  from  goods  made  in  home  factories. 
The  imports  of  cotton,  wool,  silk  and  other  raw  materials  for  home  con- 
sumption is  yearly  increasing.  The  imports  of  yarns  and  partly  manu- 
factured goods  are  decreasing,  because  of  home  supply.     The  exports 

1  Page  7,  Report.       »  Foreign  Reports,  Vol.  V.,  p.  57. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Table  of  Wages  Paid  in  the  District  of  Potsdam-Frankforton-Oder. 


/.  S/one  and  Earth  In- 
dustries : 
Briquett  makers,  .... 

Brickmakers 

Carters 

Laborers,        

Glassblowers, 

Assistants,       

Tile  carriers, 

//.  Engitieering  trade  : 

Locksmiths, 

Turners,  

Blacksmiths, 

Pattern  makers 

Moulders  and  founders,  . 
Brassfounders,        ... 

Laborers,  

///.    Woolen  Industry: 

(a)  Male  labor  : 

Washers, 

Spinners, 

Carding  boys, 

Weavers,      

Worsted  weavers,  .  .  . 
Fullers  and  dyers,  .  .  . 
Laborers 

(b)  Female  labor : 

Wool  sorters,      

Carders,  

Cloth  shearers  and  stop- 
pers,       

IV.  Haf-making  trade : 

Spinners 

Hand-felt  makers,    .    .    . 

Machine-felt  makers,  .    . 

Pumice  stoners  and  spon- 
gers,       

Sizers,  

Pressers, 

Trimmers,  women,  .    .    . 

\'.  Pafter-making  trade: 

R.it;  sorters,  women,    .    . 

Rai^I-cngine  hands. 

Hands  at  paper  machine. 

Hands  serving  the  paper 
machine 

Sorters,  women,    .... 

Packers,      

VI.  Building  trade : 
Masons  and  bricklayers. 
Carpenters, 
Laborers,     .... 

VII.  Wood  Industry : 
Saw  mill  hands. 
Wood  carvers,    , 
Cabinet  makers, 
Polishers, 


M.  pf. 


M.  pf. 


Weekly  Earn- 
ings. Weekly  Earn- 
United  States  ings. 
Money. 


M.  pf. 


Weekly  Ear 

Unityd^ltat, 
Money. 


9.60  to  13.50    I2.31  to  $3.24     12.00 


13.50  to  15.00 
14.00  to  15.00 

8.50  to  9.00 
20.00  to  20.00 
10.20  to  12.00  i 

4.50  to  12.00  1 

15.60  to  21.30 
15.00  to  19.00 
16.80  to  17.70 
iS.oo  to  19.20  i 
17.70  to  18.60 


3.24  to  3.60  15.00 
3.36  to  3.60  12.00 
2.04  to  2.16  7. So 
4.80  to  4.80  24  00 
2.45  to  2.88  10.50 
1.08  to  2.88  6.00 

3.75  to  5.11  13.00 

3.60  to  4.56  13.00 

4.04  to  4.25  16.80 

4.32  to  '4.61 

4.25  to  4.47 


M.  pf. 

o  15.00    $2.88  to  I3.60 

o  24.00  '    3.60  to  5.76 

o  28.80      2.88  to  6.92 

1. 88  to  3.14 

5.76  to  9.12 

2.52  to  3.96 


1  to    9.50  j    2.16  to 


8.00  to 
10.00  to 

6.00  to 
12.00  to 


13.00  to 


0.00  !  1.92  to  2.40  I 

6.00  I  2.40  to  3.84  , 

8.00  1  1.44  to  1.92  ' 

I  I  2.88  to  3.36 

J  3.12  to  4.32 


3.0O  to    9.00 

S.oo  to    9.00 

5.00  to  10.80 
3.00  to  19.50 
5.20  to  15.00 

2.50  to  18.00 
3.40  to  10.30 
2.80  to  13.20 
^.50  to  19.00 

5.60  to  9.00 
I40  to  10.50 
5.30  to  15.00 

3.70  to  12.00 
2.40  to  6.60 
}.6o  to  12.20 

2.00  to  15.00 
2.00  to  15.00 
B.oo  to  11.00 

2.00  to  14.00 
2.00  to  iS.oo 
2.00  to  15.00 
3.50  to  20.00 


1.44  to  2. 

1.44  to  2. 

1.44  to  2.( 

2.16  to  4.( 

3.17  to  3.( 


.82  to     2, 

1.51  to    3, 

2.09  to     2, 

.68  to 

.87  to 


I  to    3. 

!to    3. 


;to  3 

;  to  4 

3 


o  13.80 
o  3S.00 
o  16.50 
o  15.00 


12.60 

10.00 


9.90 
9.90 
4.80 
10.80 
15.00 
10.50 
7.80 


.0  33.00 
:o  30.00 
to  27.00 
:o  33.00 
30.00 
;o  25.80 
.0  iS.oo  j 


0  13.50 
;o  13.80 

o     7.2P 

o  15.00 
o  20.50 
o  13-50 
o  13-50 


11.40 
15.60 
13.20 

32   15.60 

47  10.50 
17  12.80 
56  '    4.50 

16  3.60 
52  8.40 
60  I    8.40 

1.88  10.50 
•59  ,  3-00 
i.93  I    5-40 


'  Report  c 


3.24  to 
State  of  Labor  Question  i 


16.00 
15.00 
11.00 

12.00 
17-50 
14.50 
13.00 


to 


.60 


3.12  to  7.92 

3.12  to  7.20 

4.04  to  6.48 

3.60  to  7.92 

3.75  to  7.20 

3.03  to  6.20 

2.40  to  4.32 


2.38  to    3.24 


1.00 


13.20 

I8.S0 
15.60 

16.50 
18.60 

16.20  \ 

19.50 

9.00 
12.00 

16.80 

13.00 
7.201 

13-80; 

25.00 ! 
23.00 
14.00 

20.80 
26.00  I 
26.00 
26.00  : 


2.3H  to 
2.36  to 
2.60  to 
3.60  to 
2.52  to 
1.88  to 


2.74  to 
3-75  to 
3.17  to 

3-75  to 
2.52  to 
3.08  to 


2.52  to 
.72  to 
1-3°  to 

3.84  to 
3.60  to 
2.64  to 


4. 20  to 
3.48  to 
3.12  to 


I  Germany,  pp.  8  and  9. 


PEOTECriON  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


have  undergone  a  similar  change;  instead  of  sending  out  farm  products 
and  raw  materials  these  are  being  more  largely  consumed  at  home,  while 
the  fully  manufactured  goods  are  being  sold  in  increasing  quantities  in 
all  parts  of  the  world.  Whitaker's  Almanac  for  1888  contains  the  fol- 
lowing statement  in  regard  to  the  trade  of  this  country  from  1S75  to 
18S6: 

The  changes  in  the  total  value  of  exports  and  imports  are,  however,  of  compara- 
tively small  importance  in  comparison  with  the  change  which  has  taken  place  in  the 
nature  or  the  character  of  the  trade  carried  on  in  Germany.  The  country,  although 
long  known  for  the  excellence  of  certain  of  its  manufactures,  has  until  recently  been 
an  exporter  of  raw  produce,  rather  than  of  manufactured  goods.  vSuch  is  no  longer 
the  case. 

The  imports  of  manufactured  goods  (including  partly  manufactured) 
rose  from  $141,526,000  in  1872,  to  $259,920,000  in  1886,  or  83  per  cent. 
This  was  made  up  largely  of  partly  manufactured  articles  for  use  in  home 
production.  The  imports  of  5-arns  rose  from  $48,450,000  in  1872,  to 
$83,580,000  in  1886,  or  72  per  cent.  The  exports  of  fully  manufactured 
articles  show  a  remarkable  increase,  being  $210,450,000  in  1872  and 
$540,890,000,  in  1886,  an  increase  of  157  per  cent.  In  1875  they  formed 
only  36  per  cent  of  the  exports,  while  in  1886  they  had  risen  to  75  per 
cent. 

Deducting  the  imports  from  the  exports,  and  considering  simply  the 
increase  of  exports  over  imports,  some  remarkable  figures  are  exhibited, 
showing  the  expansion  of  domestic  industries. 

The  following  shows  the  percentage  of  net  increase  in  exports  of 
certain  articles  by  quantities: 

From  1S75  to  18S6  the  exports  of  silk  manufactures  increased  S84  per  cent. 

296 


woolen 

cotton 

glass 

paper 

spirits 

beer 

machinery 


The  exports  of  machinery  rose  from  15,960  to  58,497  net  tons,  while 
the  imports  increased  during  the  same  time  from  22,340  to  33,290  tons. 
In  1875,  284,000  tons  of  pig  iron  were  imported,  while  in  1886,  858,000 
tons  were  exported.  The  effect  of  the  substitution  of  a  bounty  for  a 
drawback  on  sugar,  and  the  marvelous  development  which  has  taken 
place  in  this  industry  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  while  in  1875  Germany 
imported  1240  tons  of  sugar;  in  1886  the  net  exports  were  565,103  tons. 
The  exports  of  raw  sugar  rose  from  46,218  tons  in  1876  to  493,830  tons 
in  1890.  Of  candies  from  7393  tons  in  1876  to  215,736  tons  in  1890. 
The  imports  of  sugar  into  Germany  decreased  from  5607  tons  in  1880,  to 
3742  tons  in  1890. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Even  under  declining  prices  the  exports  b}-  valuation  show  a  similar 
increase. 

Between  1875  and  1885  the  exports  of  textile  goods  increased  7S7  per  cent. 

"  "  metal  wares  "         53S         " 

"  "  machinery  "  53         " 

"  "  glass  and  earthenware      "         355         " 

"  "  paper  "         210         " 

"  "  spirits  "  54         " 

The  above  exhibit  shows  that  Germany  is  not  only,  year   by  year, 
pplying  a  large  share  of  her  home  trade,  but  is  fast  gaining  a  larger 
share  of  the  trade  of  other  countries.     The  monopoly  which  the  United 
Kingdom  so  long  held  of  foreign  trade  is  being  destroyed  by  Germany. 

By  the  increase  of  domestic  production,  inider  protection,  in  Russia 
and  other  countries,  the  imports  of  such  articles  as  they  were  making  at 
home  have  been  restricted,  but  while  the  trade  of  Germany  has  fallen  off, 
to  such  nations,  it  has  increased  to  all  other  parts  of  the  world.  The  fol- 
lowing table  shows  the  changes  which  have  occurred  in  the  export  trade 
of  Germany  and  England  to  the  principal  nations: 


Hanse  Towns,     .    .    . 

Russia, 

Sweden  and  Norway, 

Denmark 

Holland, 

Belgium 

United  Kingdom,  .    . 

Germany 

France,      

Spain  and  Portugal,  . 

Austria, 

Italy,      

United  States,     .    .    . 


icrease  or  Decrease  in 

the  Value  of  Export. 

1  the  ZoUverein.        Fr 

1SS0-S5. 
Per  cent. 

cm  the  United  Kingd 
(British  produce.) 

Per'cent 

7.3  inc. 

29.3  dec. 

44.4  dec. 

15.8  inc. 

2.3  inc. 

6.0  inc. 

8.9  dec. 

1.4  inc. 

II. 3  dec. 

10. 1  dec. 

24.7  inc. 

3-5  inc. 

7.5  flee. 

II. 9  dec. 

12.6  dec. 

72.4  inc. 

7.1  dec. 

1.2  inc. 

52.6  inc. 

72.9  inc. 

12.1  inc. 

17. 1  dec. 

13. 1  dec. 

The  following  statement  of  the  foreign  trade  of  the  country  in  1S91 
shows  the  general  character  of  the  commodities  which  enter  into  the  trade. 
It  has  ceased  to  be  an  exporter  of  farm  produce  and  raw  materials,  and 
is  now  actively  participating  in  the  struggle  for  markets  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  for  the  produce  of  its  factories : 

Table  Showing  the  Importations  into  and  Exportations  from  the 

German  Costoms  Territory  dl-rikg  the  Year  1S91.' 

Report  by  Consular  Clerk  Murphy,  of  Berlin. 

Articles.  Imports.  Exports. 

Waste  materials,  manures,  rags,  etc., $13,328,400  12,720,400 

Cotton  and  cotton  wares 74,865,360  56,468,400 

Lead  and  lead  wares i,  188,000  2,409,600 

I  United  States  Consular  Report,  No.  1.17,  iSijj. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


Imports.  Exports 

$811,200  $3,492,240 

58,199,040  60,46s, 48r 

11,743,920  66,487,680 

90,239,520  50,338.560 

22,902,720  9,608,880 

193,146,240  31,681,680 

2,244,240  9,251,520 

:i, 035, 680  6,294,960 

34,693,200  16,982,880 

55,258,560  34,663,920 

1,796,400  6,535,440 

9,693,600  31,525,680 

27,360  31 

8,447,760  6,595,920 

2,545,680  30,112,080 

13,790,640  14,652,720 

11,067,840  21,242,160 

13,021,920  38,941,220 

7,441,680  8,154,000 

24,240  239,520 

7,318,320  22,421,520 

184,695,600  117,751,920 

37,379,520  7,572,240 

2,127,840  21,695,760 

325,200  927,840 

20,073,360  1,566,720 

44,238,240  48,680,160 

570,960  2,261,280 

3,120  80,160 

10,511,760  6,120,000 

27,185,520  36,210,960 

1,353,600  1,156,800 

5,714,880  1,832,160 

22,535,040  2,324,160 

1,376,160  8,181,600 

55,806,240  5,151,840 

318,240  233,760 

96,443,040  82,979,040 

882,480  9,054,480 

4,125,120  985,440 

171,840  2,836,080 

Total, 11,160,669,280  1888,923,040 

Total  in   1890 1,025,520,000  818,400,000 

The  above  table  does  not  represent  the  total  trade  of  the  country,  but 
simply  the  special  imports  and  exports. 

The  figures  representing  the  imports  and  exports  of  textile  fabrics 
presented  in  the  above  statement,  include  raw  materials,  and  yarns,  as 
29 


Brush  and  sieve  makers'  wares, 

Drugs,  chemicals  and  colors, 

Iron  and  iron  wares 

Earths,  ores,  precious  metals,  asbestos  and  asbestos 
wares, 

Flax  and  other  vegetable  spinning  stuffs,  with  the 
exception  of  cotton, 

Grain  and  other  agricultural  products, 

Glass  and  glass  wares, 

Hair  (horse,  human,  etc.),  feathers  and  bristles,    .    . 

Hides  and  skins, 

Wood  and  wooden  ware,  etc 

Hops, 

Instruments,  machines  and  vehicles, 

Calendars,       

Caoutchouc,  gutta-percha  and  wares  thereof,  .... 

Ready-made  clothing  and  body  linen,  also  mil- 
lineries,      

Copper  and  copper  wares, • 

Hardware,  fancy  wares,  etc 

Leather  and  leather  wares, 

Linen  yarn,  linen  and  other  linen  wares 

Candles, 

Literary  and  artistic  articles, 

Groceries,  spices,  liquors,  etc., 

Oils  not  otherwise  specified  and  fats 

Paper  and  paper  wares 

Furs,  

Petroleum 

Silk  and  silk  wares 

Soap  and  perfumes 

Playing  cards, 

Stone  and  stone  wares, 

Coal,  coke,  peat,  etc.,      

Straw  and  bast  wares 

Tar,  pitch,  resin  and  asphalt, 

Animals  and  animal  products  not  otherwise  specified, 

Pottery,  porcelain,  etc., 

Horses,  cattle,  etc., 

Wax  cloth,  wax  muslin,  etc., 

Wool  and  woolen  wares 

Zinc  and  zinc  wares, 

Tin  and  tin  wares, 

Incompletely  declared  wares, 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 

well  as  the  finished  products.  According  to  the  statistical  year  book  of 
the  German  Government,  issued  in  1894,  showing  the  foreign  trade  of  the 
country  in  1893,  the  principal  imports  of  raw  materials  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  textile  fabrics,  and  the  exports  of  finished  articles  of  this  class 
were  as  follows: 

Imports  of  Raw  Materials,  1893. 

Wool,  raw .    .  ■. $54,740,000 

Cotton,  raw 49,980,000 

Flax,      9,282,000 

Hemp 5,474,000 

Silk,  raw, 30,226,000 

Of  the  above  only  |i6,66o,ooo  were  exported. 

Exports  of  Textile  Fabrics. 

Woolen  goods 151,884,000 

Cotton  goods, 36,723,400 

Silks, 36,318,000 

Linen  goods, 4,284,000 

Woolen  and  cotton  yarns, 13,328,000 

Of  the  principal  exports  of  domestic  productions,  sugar  stood  at  the 
head,  amounting  to  $52,788,400. 

In  the  brief  space  which  can  be  devoted  to  the  trade  and  industries 
of  Germany,  it  is  impossible  to  enter  into  the  details  showing  the  specific 
effect  of  protective  duties  upon  the  various  industries  of  the  country. 
Enough,  however,  has  been  presented,  drawn  from  the  reports  of  the  Briti.sh 
consuls,  to  show  that  as  a  result  of  the  return  to  protection  in  1879, 
new  life  was  given  to  all  branches  of  production,  and  a  most  marvelous 
expansion  of  all  branches  of  manufacture  took  place.  The  ruinous  com- 
petition of  Great  Britain  was  again  warded  off,  and  the  German  manu- 
facturers entered  with  confidence  upon  a  new  career  of  business  activity. 
It  is  a  mistaken  notion  that  the  Germans  are  to-day  inferior  in  skill  and 
in  the  use  of  new  inventions  and  modern  appliances  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  various  branches  of  manufacturing.  Old  machinery 
has  been  discarded  and  their  factories  are  now  as  well  equipped  as  those 
of  any  other  country,  and  every  effort  is  being  made  to  reach  the  highest 
degree  of  skill  and  efficiency.  In  this  respect  and  especially  in  the  atten- 
tion which  has  been  given  to  the  technical  education  of  the  people,  they 
have  greatly  surpassed  the  English.  While  a  vast  quantity  of  cheap  and 
plain  goods  are  being  produced,  the  country  is  fa.st  becoming  noted  for 
its  production  of  the  more  delicate,  beautiful  and  costly  fabrics  and  wares. 

There  are  in  Germany  328  places  of  in.struction  in  manual  training. 
The  establishment  of  the.se  in.stitutions  began  about  the  year  1S78,  and 
they  have  since  rapidly  increa.sed  as  the  interest  in  industrial  pur.suits  has 
grown.  One  hundred  and  fifty-six  of  the.se  institutions  have  been  started 
since  1888.  They  are  divided  among  the  States  and  cities  as  follows: 
Prussia   has   201;  Saxony,   47;  Dresden,    17;  Cologne,   15;  Berlin,   10; 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE 


Halle,  7;  Bremen,  6:  Leipsic,  8:  Hanover,  Liibeck  and  Magdeburg 
5  each;  Aix-la-Chapelle,  Barmen,  Emden,  Hamburg  and  Munich  4  each; 
Duseii,  Konigsberg,  Weimar,  and  Wurzburg,  3  each.'  Many  are 
supported  by  the  State,  some  by  communes  and  societies,  and  others  bv 
private  persons.  The  course  of  training  and  instruction  embraces  all  of 
the  departments  of  scientific  information  and  technical  learning,  practiced 
in  all  industrial  pursuits.  It  is  folly  for  free  trade  writers,  as  has  been 
the  case,  to  attempt  to  make  it  appear  that  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  although  receiving  higher  wages,  are  by  superior  skill  enabled  to 
surpass  the  Germans  in  competition,  when  in  designing,  dyeing  and  in 
the  scientific  features  of  the  production  of  fabrics,  they  are  excelled  by  none 
unless  it  be  the  French.  Not  only  are  they  equipping  and  strengthening 
themselves  in  every  way  possible  for  industrial  supremacy,  but  they  are 
showing  a  degree  of  ambition  and  enterprise  in  pressing  themselves  into 
foreign  trade,  which  has  attracted  the  attention  of  the  commercial  world. 
In  the  collection  of  statistics,  in  knowledge  of  commercial  geography 
and  of  the  needs  and  wants  of  foreign  nations,  they  are  surpassed  by 
none. 

The  ceaseless  efforts,  says  Louis  Stern,  of  the  representatives  of  the  German 
industries  to  open  up  new  fields  for  the  sale  of  their  products  appear  to  have  received 
special  encouragement  and  support  on  the  part  of  the  German  Government  since  the 
holding  of  the  World's  Columbian  Exposition.  In  connection  with  this  fact,  it  is 
interesting  to  learn  that  the  German  consular  officers  in  foreign  countries  are 
devoting  themselves  to  advancing  the  interests  of  German  industries  by  employing 
a  novel,  but  thoroughly  practical,  method  of  securing  additional  sources  of  demand 
for  German  articles  of  manufacture.  I  have  learned  through  the  medium  of  German 
publications,  that,  through  the  German  consuls  in  the  United  States,  agencies  have 
been  established  in  nearly  all  the  important  centres,  in  charge  of  persons  conversant 
with  English  and  German  and  thoroughly  supplied  with  information  relating  to 
the  exporting  industries  of  their  countrj'. 

At  these  bureaus,  that  might  be  denominated  ' '  industrial  agencies, ' '  interested 
parties  can  obtain  information  and  advice  regarding  German  sources  of  supply  and 
the  relative  condition  of  market  prices,  freight  rates,  and  tariff  duties,  so  that, 
benefiting  by  this,  even  the  importer  of  smaller  quantities  will,  in  future,  be  able 
to  order  wares  from  Germany  at  first  hand.  Whether  these  agents  thus  appointed 
by  the  German  consular  officers  are  supplied  with  books  containing  information 
about  the  various  branches  of  German  industries  and  indicating  definitely  the 
manufacturing  firm,  with  its  respective  locality  and  price  quotations,  is  at  present 
unknown  to  me,  but  it  may  reasonably  be  assumed  that  such  is,  the  case.  It  is 
obvious,  however,  that  .such  bureaus  of  information,  if  intrusted  to  the  direction 
of  the  right  persons  will,  in  time,  prove  to  be  of  inestimable  value  to  parties 
interested. 2 

In  considering  Germany  as  a  competitor  among  nations  for  the 
markets  of  the  world,  not  only  the  skill  and  enterprise  of  her  people,  her 
va.st  industrial  population  and  low  wages,  but  the  large  accumulations  of 
wealth  which  are  taking  place  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.     The  power  of 


>  UuUcd  States  Consular  Report,  No, 
Report,  No.  166,  July,  1894,  pp.  458  and  459. 


157,  October,  1893,  ] 


Commer- 
cial activity 
of  the 


PEOTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


capital  as  a  factor  in  commercial  warfare  lias  been  demonstrated  by  the 
success  achieved  by  British  manufacturers,  so  long  as  they  surpassed  other 
nations  in  this  respect. 

The  estimate  of  the  wealth  of  the  German  people,  made  in  1886  by 
Professor  Becker,  chief  of  the  German  Bureau  of  Statistics,  was  $41,650,- 
000,000.  Of  Prussia  alone,  Mr.  Miquel,  the  Prussian  Minister  of 
Finance,  concluded  that  the  wealth  was  $17,564,400,000,  of  which 
$7,075,740,000  was  invested  in  .stocks,  bonds  and  loans.  Of  the  whole 
wealth  of  the  German  Empire,  it  is  estimated  that  aboiit  25  per  cent  is 
invested  in  stocks  and  bonds,  and  United  States  Commercial  Agent  Smith 
estimates  that  this  ' '  will  be  increased  to  40  or  50  per  cent  in  the  next 
generation. ' '  It  was  estimated  by  Professor  Schmoller  that  from  2, 500,000 
to  4,000,000  of  the  inhabitants  derive  incomes  from  invested  capital,  one- 
half  of  which  hold  public  securities.  It  is  estimated  by  Professor  Becker 
that  the  annual  increase  in  wealth  is  3  per  cent,  or  $1,190,000,000. 
Deducting  the  amount  which  rises  from  enhancement  in  values,  he  finds' 
about  $595,000,000  to  represent  the  annual  savings  of  the  people.  Con- 
sular Agent  Smith  says  on  this  point:  '"' In  the la.st  ten  years  the  deposits 
in  the  savings  banks  are  claimed  to  have  augmented  about  $44,030,000 
per  annum.  And  throughout  Germany  probably  $7 1 ,400,000  to $95, 200,000 
from  which  it  is  inferred  that  the  German  nation  is  laying  up  from  $476,- 
000,000  to  $595,000,000  annually,  one-half  of  which  goes  into  securities. " 

Professor  Schmoller  estimates  that  during  the  last  ten  j-ears  about 
$952,000,000  to  $1,190,000,000  have  been  invested  in  foreign  securities, 
and  $1,904,000,000  in  domestic  securities.  "  Commercially  and  indus- 
trially," says  Consul  Smith,  "Germany  is  in  a  favorable  situation  to-day, 
notwithstanding  the  complaints  that  one  hears  from  time  to  time,  and 
those  per-sons  err  greatly  who  imagine  that  the  country  is  soon  going  to 
be  financially  engulfed  by  its  military  burdens. ' '  ' 

The  accumulation  of  wealth  which  is  taking  place  is  undoubtedly 
due  in  great  part  to  the  tariff  policy  which  is  being  practiced.  Similar 
results  are  found  to  have  followed  the  development  of  domestic  resources 
in  all  countries  where  protection  has  been  accorded  to  home  producers. 
As  mines  are  opened,  factories  built,  agriculture  extended,  industrial 
activity  takes  place,  home  trade  becomes  more  brisk,  production  is  aug- 
mented and  the  opportunities  which  are  thus  brought  into  existence  for 
the  investment  of  capital  and  employment  of  labor  at  home  bring  about 
the  very  conditions  which  make  the  accumulation  of  wealth  possible. 

The  growth  of  capital  is  also  indicated  by  the  extent  to  which  the 
various  branches  of  production  are  carried  on.  It  would  be  impossible 
in  the  brief  space  devoted  to  the  subject  here  to  give  the  magnitude  of 
the  various  manufacturing  establishments  of  the  country.  It  is  enough. 
however,  to  say  that  the  woolen  manufactories  in  1890  gave  employment 

'  United  States  Consular  Report.  No.  i66,  July,  1894,  pp.  390  and  391. 


PROTECTION  IN  THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE. 

to  250,000  hands.  In  the  cloth  manufacture  there  were  2, 600, 000  spindles 
in  operation.  The  sixty  linen  factories  employ  300,000  spindles  and  about 
250,000  looms.  There  are  in  the  cotton  industry  7,000,000  spindles  and 
300,000  looms.  In  the  year  above  referred  to,  1890,  there  were  100  por- 
celain factories;  300  glass  works ;  700  establishments  for  manufacturing 
chemicals  and  dye  stuffs,  and  1240  paper  mills.  The  iron  and  coal  indus- 
tries have  also  made  remarkable  progress  since  1879.  Germany  ranks 
next  to  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  in  the  production  of  coal, 
pig  iron  and  steel,  and  is  "abreast  of  both  countries  in  the  production 
of  iron  ore. ' '  The  production  of  iron  ore  as  shown  by  the  statistics  of 
Dr.  H.  Rentzsch,  the  Statistician  of  the  Association  of  German  Iron  and 
Steel  Manufacturers  from  1869  to  1894 was,  in  1869,  4,053,807  tons;  1879, 
5,859,439  tons;  1894,  12,403,758  tons.  The  number  of  tons  of  coal  mined 
increased  from  5,800,985  tons  in  1848,  to  53,470,716  tons  in  1879,  and  in 
1894  it  had  reached  98,876,105  tons.  The  production  of  pig  iron  grew 
from  1,409,429  tons  in  1869,  to  2,226,587  tons  in  1879,  and  by  189411  had 
reached  5,416,000  tons.  Tons  of  steel  made  increased  from  500,900  in 
1879  to  3,621,000  in  1894.  The  make  of  steel  rails  in  1871  was  128,406 
tons,  and  483,228  in  1893. 

In  i860  nearh'  all  the  locomotives  and  machinery  used  in  the 
country-  were  imported,  while  to-day  the  home  demand  is  not  only  being 
almost  exclusively  supplied  from  home  machine-works,  but  large  sales 
are  being  made  in  foreign  countries.  There  are  750  machine-works  in 
the  Empire  employing  over  90,000  hands.  The  German  people  excel  in 
the  making  of  iron  and  steel,  machinery,  hardware  and  cutlery.  The 
sharp  competition  that  is  being  waged  against  British  manufacturers  in 
all  markets  is  evidence,  not  only  of  a  large  yearly  production,  but  also  of 
the  efficiency  and  skill  of  artisans,  as  well  as  the  ability  and  enterpri.se  of 
the  German  capitalists. 

There  is  scarcely  a  better  example  to  be  found  in  any  country  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  policy  of  protection  than  is  presented  by  the  growth  of 
industries  in  Germany  since  1879.  The  results  which  have  followed  have 
fully  vindicated  the  statesmanship  of  Prince  Bismarck.  It  is  a  mistaken 
notion  that  protection  was  returned  to  under  Bismarck  because  of  the  heavy 
drafts  on  the  treasury  made  necessary  to  support  a  large  standing  army 
and  the  military  system.  Neither  were  protective  duties  restored  for  the 
purpose  of  retaliating  against  protective  countries.  The  policy  was 
deliberately  entered  upon  after  a  careful  study  of  the  situation  of  the 
country  and  an  examination  of  the  science  of  economics  by  Prince  Bis- 
marck, King  William  and  others.  In  the  short  and  disastrous  period  of 
free  trade  following  the  Franco-Prussian  war,  the  bankruptcy  of  business 
men,  the  ruin  of  industries  and  the  lack  of  employment  for  labor  proved 
a  return  to  protection  to  be  not  only  a  pressing  necessity,  but  the  only 
policy  under  which  the  German  people  could  become  rich  and  prosperous. 


C^APTER  II. 


Russia. 


In  extent  of  domain  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  certain  natural  and  geo- 
graphical advantages,  Russia  is  the  grandest  empire  on  the  globe.  With 
twice  the  area  of  the  United  States  and  one  hundred  and  sixty  times  that 
of  England  and  Wales,  it  embraces  one-sixth  of  the  world's  habitable  land. 
How  much  the  population  exceeds  115,000,000  is  not  known,  for  the  limit 
of  territory  or  number  of  inhabitants  are  not  fully  known  even  to  the  gov- 
ernment itself.  The  .surface  is  for  the  most  part  one  or  two  vast  plains 
surrounded  on  all  sides  by  mountain  or  sea.  It  is  to  European  Ru.ssia 
that  the  reader's  attention  will  be  directed  almost  wholly.  On  the  east 
are  the  Ural  mountains  and  through  the  centre  running  from  east  to  west 
is  a  wide  undulating  ridge.  To  the  north  the  country  slopes  to  the  Baltic 
and  Arctic  ;  to  the  south,  toward  the  Caspian  and  Black  Seas,  which  lead 
to  the  Mediterranean  ;  to  the  west,  toward  Austria,  German)'  and  the 
Baltic.  The  climate  is  most  varied.  .  In  the  south  is  the  warm  temperate 
region  of  the  Crimea,  in  the  north  the  frozen  regions  of  the  Arctic;  the 
one  luxuriant  with  tropical  fruits,  the  other  an  icebound  tract,  barren 
of  any  kind  of  vegetation.  Between  the  two  extremes  are  found  nearly 
every  production  known  to  man.  Agriculture  is  naturally  the  predomi- 
nating occupation,  though  it  will  be  shown  how  manufacturing  has  devel- 
oped under  various  degrees  of  protection.  The  history  of  Russia  from  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century  to  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  has  but  little 
interest  for  the  student  of  trade  and  commercial  advancement,  and  even 
during  the  century  following  Peter  the  Great,  there  was  not  much  indus- 
trial progress.  The  early  history  is  a  continual  series  of  foreign  and 
internal  wars.  No  great  progress  in  industrial  arts  was  made  till 
the  time  of  Peter  the  Great,  whose  reign  began  in  1689.  In  two 
years  time  he  became  endowed  with  the  will  and  ambition  to  advance  his 
people  in  art  and  science.  Disguised  in  name  and  appearance  he  went  to 
Holland.  On  arriving  at  Amsterdam  he  enrolled  himself  among  the  ship- 
wrights and  worked  in  the  yards  side  by  side  with  other  artisans.  When 
not  at  work  he  studied  and  read,  making  himself  proficient  in  drawing 
plans  in  fortification  and  navigation.  Nothing  escaped  his  observation. 
He  examined  ever)'  workshop  and,  every  tool.  He  made  a  trip  to  England, 
where  he  perfected  him.self  in  .ship-building,  and  returned  to  Holland.  At 
the  end  of  two  years  he  returned  to  his  country.  Soon  after  were  erectetl 
large  Russian  ships  on  the  Baltic,  Black  and  Arctic  Seas.  Stately  buildings 
(454) 


EUSSIA. 


rose  among  the  miserable  huts.  Colleges,  libraries  and  printing  houses 
followed.  Reforms  of  all  kinds  were  adopted.  The  dress  of  the  people 
was  changed.  Cities  had  military  and  police  regulations.  Peter  taught 
his  subjects  discipline  and  obedience  by  going  himself  to  the  ranks  and 
working  up  to  the  head  of  the  army.  He  took  500  bells  from  the  churches 
to  make  cannon.  He  was  a  good  engineer,  a  skillful  pilot,  with  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  naval  affairs.  He  even  mastered  the  subject  of  surgery. 
In  a  short  time  he  had  completely  tran.sformed  the  Empire.  The  building 
of  St.  Petersburg  was  begun  and  concluded  under  his  supervision,  and  in 
1 7 18  it  became  the  capital  of  the  Empire.  Not  only  did  Peter  promote 
ship-building,  architecture  and  the  construction  of  fortifications,  but  at  his 
death  there  were  twenty-one  imperial  manufactories.  Since  the  time  of 
Peter  the  Great,  Catherine  II.,  Alexander  I.,  Nicholas  I.  and  Alexander 
II.  have  all  distinguished  themselves  in  promoting  and  encouraging  the 
industries  of  the  realm,  particularly  manufactures.  The  history  of  other 
sovereigns  is  but  a  repetition  of  court  intrigues  and  foreign  wars,  and  all 
with  but  little  gain  to  the  Empire.  The  impetus  given  by  Peter,  however, 
was  never  wholly  lost,  and  with  the  adoption  of  strict  commercial  relations 
at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  industries  of  all  kind  took  a  long 
stride  forward.  The  nineteenth  century  opened  with  the  assassination  of 
Paul  and  the  accession  of  Alexander  the  First.  A  high  tariff  duty  system 
had  been  established  a  few  years  before,  followed  in  1800  by  the  prohi- 
bition of  importations  of  silk,  cotton,  flax  or  hemp  materials,  gla.ss, 
earthenware  or  porcelain.  In  1801  the  exportation  of  all  Russian  wares 
was  prohibited,  but  Alexander  the  First  rescinded  this  decree.  All 
English  goods  were  shut  out  in  1804,  and  in  18 10  trade  statutes  were 
issued  restricting  the  importation  of  all  foreign  goods,  forbidding  the 
import  of  ready-made  articles,  but  favoring  certain  importations  through 
neutral  vessels. 

In  1816,  however,  at  the  restoration  of  peace  in  Europe,  concessions 
were  made  and  in  18 19  the  protective  .sj'Stem  was  entirely  abandoned.  A 
low  rate  of  duty  was  retained,  but  it  gave  such  freedom  to  the  importation 
of  goods  as  seriously  to  affect  all  manufactures.  On  the  other  hand, 
England,  France  and  Prussia  had  tariffs  of  a  strong  protective  character, 
so  that  Rus.sia  was  at  a  double  disadvantage.  It  did  not  take  her  long  to 
see  the  necessity  of  again  returning  to  protection,  and  in  1822  a  new 
customs  tariff  was  adopted  and  the  importations  of  foreign  goods  were  for- 
bidden or  subjected  to  high  duties.  Russia  has  never  since  returned  to  free 
trade.  Her  tariff  systems  have  changed  but  always  with  more  or  less  pro 
tective  features.  From  1822  till  1849  high  duties  were  maintained.  From 
1850  till  1876  more  moderate  duties  prevailed,  while  from  1877  to  the 
present  time,  duties  have  been  levied  in  a  series  of  measures  with  a  view  to 
protecting  Russian  productions  and  Russian  industries.  Few  statistics  are 
available  to  show  the  workings  of  the  tariff  prior  to  1824.     The  tariff  of 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


1822  was  a  thoroughly  protective  measure.  The  importation  of  textile 
fabrics,  cotton  stufFs,  different  sorts  of  cloths,  silk  stuffs,  certain  kinds  of 
paper,  copper  wares,  glass  and  porcelain  goods,  some  earthen  wares  and 
refined  sugar,  were  altogether  forbidden.  The  importation  of  cast  iron 
and  iron,  by  sea,  was  prohibited,  and  a  large  duty  was  levied  if  imported 
by  land.  The  strictly  protective  features  of  this  tariff  which  tended  to 
enhance  home  production  were  not  changed  by  the  modifications  which 
took  place  in  the  years  following.  Prohibitions  were  changed  to  high 
rates  of  duties  and  in  some  instances  temporary  changes  were  made  to 
develop  a  particular  industry,  for  instance  sheep  .shears  were  admitted 
for  awhile,  to  encourage  sheep  breeding.  Again,  certain  models  were 
admitted  free  or  at  a  low  rate  of  duty  for  the  benefit  of  manufacturers. 
In  1 83 1  the  duties  were  considerably  raised,  but  lowered  again  in  1836. 
Export  duties  which  had  prevailed  to  a  large  degree  were  lowered  from 
time  to  time  during  the  first  part  of  the  century.  In  1841  a  new  tariff 
was  issued  which  continued  in  force  till  1850.  For  the  first  half  of  the 
century  then,  it  will  be  seen  that  Russia  maintained  a  system  of  pro- 
tective tariffs  with  the  exception  of  three  years. 

Foreign  Trade  of  Russia — 1S24-1S49. 


Years. 

Export. 

Import. 

Excess  of  ex- 
port (  +  )  or 
import  (  —  ). 

Customs 
revenues. 

1824 

1825 

1826 

1827 

1828 

1829 

1830 

1831 

1832 

1833  • 

1834 

1835 

1836 

1837 

1838 

1839 

1840 

1 841 

1842 

1843 

1844 

1847 
1848 
1849 

Roubl 
50,300 
59,800 
44,600 
56,600 
50,200 
56,500 
63,500 
61,400 
61,600 
59,000 
55,400 

69,400 
63,800 

76,600 
76,900 
74,100 
73,200 
82,500 
81,100 
90,700 
36,900 
78,500 
85,700 

000 

000 
oco 

000 
000 

000 
000 

000 

000 
000 
000 

000 
000 
000 

000 
000 
000 

Roub 
42,100 
44,100 
73.S00 
46,100 
47,300 
53,100 
43,900 
41,900 
43,900 
45,000 
53,300 
54,200 
56,600 
60,400 
59.600 
59.600 
67,300 
65,200 
69,900 
62,600 
65,800 
68,500 
7 1 . 700 
74,000 
76,000 
81,900 

000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 

000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 

000 
000 

000 
000 
000 

Roubles. 
+  8,200,000 
+  15,700,000 

—  29,200,000 
+  10,500,000 
+  2,900,000 
-j-  3,400,000 
+  19,600,000 
+  19,500,000 
-)-  17,700,000 
-j-  14,000,000 
+  2,100,000 

—  0,100,000 
+  12,800,000 
+  3,400,000 
+  18,300,000 
+  26,800,000 
+  9.300,000 
+  11,700,000 
+  4,200,000 
+  10,600,000 
-f  16,700,000 
+  12,600,000 

4  19,600,000 
-1-  62,900,000 
+    1,700,000 
4-  3.800,000 

Roubles. 
11,100,000 
12,700,000 
12,300,000 
13,800,000 
14,900,000 
16,000,000 
17,200,000 
18,200,000 
23,300,000 
23,400,000 
23,000,000 
22,400,000 
23,300,000 
25,600,000 
24,900,000 
25,500,000 
26,400,000 
26,600,000 
29,900,000 
29,500,000 
31,900,000 
30,400,000 
30.300,000 
29,100,000 
29,600,000 
29,900,000 

Value  of  Rouble  77.2  c 


The  effect  on  her  industries  will  be  shown  as  they  are  taken  up  in 
detail.  The  effect  on  her  foreign  trade  can  be  seen  from  the  opposite 
table  taken  from  "The  Industries  of  Russia"'  as  translated  by  United 
States  Consul  J.  M.  Crawford,  who  adds  the  following  statement: 

It  appears  from  these  returns  that  in  the  twenties  the  average  amount  of  exports 
ma)-  be  valued  at  53,000,000  roubles,  exceeding  by  2,000,000  the  value  of  the  average 
annual  imports  (51,000,000  roubles),  the  customs  duty  forming  27  per  cent  of  the 
import  value.  In  the  thirties  the  average  yearly  export  reached  65,000,000  roubles, 
exceeding  the  mean  yearly  import  by  13,000,000  roubles,  the  customs  duties  forming 
45  per  cent  of  the  import  value.  Finally,  in  the  forties,  the  average  j'early  export, 
excluding  the  abnormal  year,  1847,  grew  to  the  sum  of  80,000,000  roubles,  or 
10,000,000  roubles  more  than  the  amount  of  the  mean  import,  of  which  the  duties 
collected  were  about  30  per  cent. 

During  only  two  years  in  this  period  did  the  imports  exceed  the 
exports,  and  in  one  of  those  only  by  an  insignificant  amount.  The  duties 
collected  show  a  rate  of  from  30  to  50  per  cent.  From  the  source  whence 
the  table  was  taken  it  is  found  that,  "owing  to  the  influence  of  the 
protective  tariff,  together  with  other  measures  furthering  home  produc- 
tion, the  Russian  manufacturing  industries  developed  greatly." 

The  484  cotton  factories  of  1825,  employing  47,000  hands,  had 
increased  in  1850  to  536  factories,  with  1 10,000  hands.  In  1820  cotton 
yarn  was  imported  to  the  value  of  8,640,000  roubles  (about  $6,600,000). 
In  1850  only  half  that  amount  was  used  while  the  amount  of  raw  cotton 
used  had  increased,  the  cotton  spinning  industry  being  well  established. 
In  1825  there  were  324  cloth  factories,  with  64,000  workmen,  and  in  1850 
98,000  hands  were  employed  in  633  works.  Of  silk  weaving  establish- 
ments there  were  184  in  1825,  having  10,000  workmen.  In  1850  the 
number  had  increased  to  384,  with  17,000  workmen.  Eighty -seven 
paper  mills  with  8000  men  in  1825  increased' to  159  with  15,000  men 
in  1850.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  even  in  the  earlier  part  of  the 
century  Russia  was  developing  her  manufactures  under  a  system  of 
protection. 

From  1845  prohibitory  laws  were  gradually  changed  to  carry  out  the 
policy  of  protective  tariffs.  Up  to  1851  more  or  less  diflSculty  had  been 
encountered  in  arranging  the  tariffs  of  Russia  and  Poland  with  respect  to 
each  other.  Poland  had  become  quite  a  manufacturing  country,  and  from 
her  Russia  imported  many  of  her  finished  wares,  sending  food  stuffs  and 
certain  raw  material  in  exchange.  The  tariff  introduced  in  1851  adopted 
a  system  more  equitable  to  both.  In  1854  a  general  change  in  the  tariff 
was  made.  The  Crimean  War  had  stopped  all  external  trade  by  sea  and 
to  increase  the  land  trade  duties  were  lowered  on  almost  everything 
imported  across  the  frontier.  The  duties  had  been  very  high,  in  many 
cases  exceeding  100  per  cent.  This  encouraged  .smuggling  to  such  an 
extent  as  seriously  to  affect  the  revenues.     Moreover,  at  the  close  of  the 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


war  the  duties  were  such  that  the  importations  by  land  so  exceeded  those 
b)'  sea  as  to  injure  the  marine  trade.  A  general  lowering  of  duties, 
therefore,  took  place  and  the  tariff  in  general  was  much  simplified.  It 
is  not  to  be  concluded,  however,  that  there  was  any  considerable  approach 
to  free  trade.  On  the  contrary,  duties  were  imposed  on  special  articles 
with  the  express  purpose  of  fostering  home  production.  High  duties 
were  placed  on  competing  articles,  low  duties  on  non-competing  articles. 
Again  in  1867  a  general  revision  took  place  which  was  ratified  the  fol- 
lowing year  and  remained  in  operation  till  1876.  Many  export  duties 
were  abolished,  and  the  number  of  articles  comprised  in  the  list  of 
importations,  exportations  and  prohibitions,  were  reduced  from  719  to 
260.  Sixteen  classes  were  left  free.  The  duty  on  152  articles  was 
reduced  and  increased  on  thirty-five  articles.  The  excess  of  exports  over 
imports  gradually  diminished  from  1850  to  1868,  when  for  eight  years  the 
imports  exceeded  the  exports.  There  was,  however,  a  gradual  increase 
in  manufacturing  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  table : 

The  Growth  of  the  Principal  Branches  of  the  Russian  Manufacturing 
Industry  Under  the  Tariffs  of  1S50,  1857  and  1868.' 


Mandfacturbs. 


1.  Cotton  spinniug, 

2.  Cotton  weaving  , 

V   Wool  spinning 

4.  Cloth,  

5.  Other  woolen  and  half-woolen  tis- 

.sues, 

6.  Printing,   dyeing  and  finishing  of 

the  fabrics, 

7.  Silk  weaving 

S.  Hemp  spinning,  and  rope 

9-  Paper 

10.  Leather,  

11.  Chemical  products  and  dyes,  .    .    . 

12.  Soap  and  tallow  candles, 

13.  Glass.  .  

14.  Building  of  machines  and  railway 

cars  ;  mechanical  industry,  .    .    . 


1850.     1857.     1867.     1876. 


Millions  of  roubles. 


I,S.9 

18.5 

40.4 

12.8 

l.S.b 

30.1 

0.4 

2.6 

18.2 

26.0 

34.0  i 

6.9 

6.7 

12.6 

16.,^ 

16..S 

32.1 

b.4 

.s-,-^ 

4-3 

2.2 

?,■?, 

4.21 

V2 

V6 

4.9! 

8.6 

lO.O 

16. 1 

2.2 

\<^ 

■S.o 

4.0 

5.6 

6.8 

3-0 

3-4 

3-5 

0.4 

3-9 

14.0 

Average  yearly  increase 


During  the  tariffs  of 


-1-2.6 

+  7.4' 

+3.4 

+  6.2  2 

+  18.5 

-f6.i 

+  2.5^ 

-0.5 

+  7.1^ 

-1-0.2 

+  6.2 

—3.2 

+  1.9 

-f-7.0 

+  2.4 

+2.0 

-f    2.8 

+2.6 

+  4-4    1 

-fio.o 

-f-2.2     ! 

+.S.8 

-1-  1.8 

+2.1 

+  0.3 

+5.8 

+  1.8    i 

+2.8 

+  1.8 
—7-4 
-0.5 

+7.1 
+5-7 
+  1.1 
+3-3 
+4-5 


'  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  I.,  p.  417. 

2  With  regard  to  the  cotton  and  wool  nianufacture,  in  which  the  obligatory  labor  had  a   vast 
application,  the  period  during  which  the  tariff  of  1857  was  in  force  can  be  divided  into  three  strongly 


The  table  shows  a  much  slower  progress  under  the  tariff  of  i86S, 
when  duties  were  considerabl)-  lowered.  The  free  trade  tendencies  in 
the  tariff  of  1868,  as  proved  by  the  adverse  balance  of  trade  and  check  to 
industrial  progress  were  completely  overturned  by  the  measure  of  January 
I,  1877.  Duties  were  then  levied  in  gold  which  increased  the  protection 
to  home  manufactures  by  from  25  to  30  per  cent,  and  this  protective  fea- 
ture increased  as  the  value  of  the  paper  rouble  depreciated.  Besides  the 
added  protection  given  by  levying  duties  in  gold,  the  duties  were  raised 
in  general,  and  in  1882  the  tariflf  was  revised  solely  with  a  view  to  pro- 
tecting certain  industries  not  sufficiently  protected  from  foreign  competi- 
tion. The  duties  were  in  many  instances  changed  from  ad  valorem  to 
specific,  and  sheep  farming  was  given  special  protection  from  the  im- 
mense importations  of  cheap  foreign  wools.  In  1885  still  further  and 
higher  duties  were  imposed.  The  industries  needing  the  greatest  help 
always  received  the  first  attention.  Special  branches  were  singled 
out,  thoroughly  investigated,  and  protection  was  given  without  waiting 
for  a  general  revision.  The  development  of  home  industr}'  was  always 
paramount.  Sometimes  it  would  be  the  last  finished  article  that  would 
receive  particular  attention,  again  it  would  be  the  raw  material.  In 
addition  to  import  duties  export  duties  were  levied  on  many  of  the 
natural  resources  of  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  fostering  kindred 
industries  at  home.  One  feature  of  tariff  legislation  in  Russia  is  particu- 
larly noticeable.  It  is  the  immediate  change  made  as  soon  as  the  effect 
of  a  law  is  determined.  It  does  not  take  years  nor  even  months  to  re- 
peal an  injurious  measure  or  adopt  a  new  law  needful  for  the  promotion 
of  an  industry. 

What  is  for  the  best  interests  of  Russia  and  her  people  has  come  to 
be  the  only  consideration  and  the  subject  for  inquiry  and  legislation. 
To  show  the  great  increase  under  the  tariff  of  1876  and  various  special 
measures  the  following  table  is  appended,  taken  from  "The  Industries  of 
Russia;'" 


different  parts,  namely:  (i)  from  1S57  to  1S60  ;  {2)  from  i860  to  1863,  ^ 
emancipation  of  the  serfs  and  with  the  cotton  crisis  ;  (3)  from  1863  to  1867  ; 
of  time  a  considerable  decrease  of  the  industry  may  be  noticed,  while  in 
rising,  as  shown  in  the  following  table  : 


1  coincided  with  the 
ng  the  second  period 
last  it  is  again  fast 


Mandfactdres. 

1858  to  i860. 

1861  to  1863. 

1864  to  1867. 

increase. 

Decrease. 

Increase. 

Per  cent. 
J1.6 

u 

9-4 

Per  cent. 

9.8 
■5.8 
10.3 

3-3 

Per  cent. 
16.5 

Cotton  weavini;  1  ;  !  !  !  !  !  ".  !  '.  !  !  !  !  !  1 

Woolen  fabrics, 

"si 
10.7 

PROTECTION  IX  COXTIXENTAL  AXD  OTHER  COUXTKIES. 


Cotton   spinning  and  weaving, 
Wool  spinning  and  weaving, 
Dyeing,  printing  and  dres 
Flax  and  hemp  spinning, 

Silk  weaving, 

Paper-making  and  wall  paper, 
Chemicals  and  coloring  matters, 
Tanning,  .        . 

Glass  and  mirror  making,     .    . 

Pottery  and  china 

Machine  constructing 

Total, 


roubles. 

of 

IS76. 

1890. 

increase. 

102.7 

246.5 

140 

55-5 

105.6 

90 

37-7 

97-5 

160 

20.1 

33-3 

66 

8.2 

14.4 

76 

9.8 

23-3 

i3« 

5-5 

17.7 

222 

26.6 

35-9 

36 

5-2 

"•5 

2.2 

4.1 

86 

43-4 

52.6 

21 

316.9      642., 


The  effect  of  a  return  to  a  strict  protective  system  in  1876  was  accom- 
panied by  a  marked  advance  and  wonderful  strides  in  industrial  progress. 
As  has  been  before  stated  the  changes  from  1876  to  1890  were  piece-meal 
and  special.  The  time  had  again  come  for  a  general  revision  which  was 
carried  out  in  1 89 1.  The  natural  resources  and  advantages  in  the  pro- 
duction of  raw  materials  had  become  more  and  more  apparent  as  manu- 
factures had  developed  and  grown.  Altered  conditions  and  new  products 
all  necessitated  a  thorough  revision.  The  revision  was  really  begun  in 
18S7.  Specialists  were  appointed  to  investigate  all  foreign  trade,  as 
well  as  the  actual  condition  of  all  branches  of  home  trade  and  manufac- 
tures. Committees  were  appointed  from  the  governm«nt,  from  boards 
of  trade,  from  every  department  of  industry  and  agriculture,  supple- 
mented by  specialists  in  technical  pursuits.  This  council  finally  pas.sed  the 
law  of  1891,  which  was  ratified  by  the  Czar  on  June  11,  and  put  into 
operation  July  i .  American  free  traders  would  do  well  to  study  this  tariff 
and  the  methods  adopted  in  framing  it.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  in  ever^- 
instance  the  protection  of  home  industry  was  paramount  to  everything 
el.se.  So-called  raw  material  native  to  Russia  received  the  same  degree 
of  protection  as  the  fini.shed  article.  Especial  attention  was  given  to  the 
chemical  industry  which  had  in  previous  tariffs  been  considered  of 
secondary  importance.  Great  changes  were  made  to  encourage  domestic 
productions  from  the  first  stages  to  the  last.  In  .short,  adequate  protec- 
tion was  extended  to  ever}'  indu.strj-  in  which  Russia  can  engage  to  advan- 
tage. The  revenue  was  given  either  secondary  or  no  consideration.  In 
fact  there  are  many  instances  where  a  fiscal  policy  seems  to  be  sacrificed 
in  order  to  encourage  and  foster  a  certain  branch  of  domestic  indu.stry. 
But  the  result  of  the  former  tariff  fully  justified  the  tariff  of  1891,  and 
that  measure  has  been  fully  vindicated.  The  chief  industries  of  Russia 
will  now  be  briefly  considered  that  the  reader  may  judge  what  advance  a 
semi-barbarous  country  can  make  under  a  .sy.stem  that  develops  and 
fosters  home  production. 


i 


RUSSIA. 


To  give  a  comprehensive  exhibit  of  Russian  manufacturing  indus- 
tries in  i8go,  the  following  table  is  taken  from  "The  Industries  of 
Russia:'" 


Manui 


Mills  Arr 
Produce 


^         Production  „,     , 
Manufac-  'jy  millious  Workmer 
tories  and     of  paper        i"  thou 
"lis.  roubles.  sands. 


1.  Cotton  goods  (yarn  and  tissues), 

2.  Linen  goods  (scutching,  spinning,  weaving),    .    .    . 

3.  Woolen  goods  (cleaning,  wool  spinning,  weaving, 

felt,  carpets,  cloth),  ...  '       1,044 

4.  Silk  goods  (throwing,  weaving,  brocade),     ...    .1         254 

5.  Ropes,  oil-cloth,  hats,  ribbons,  knitted  and  plaited  | 

goods  made  of  fibres |  509 

6.  Writing  paper,  wall  papers, 357 

7.  Leather  and  leathern  goods,       j       2,690 


59 

1.592 


'262 


I, is 


8.  Glue,  tallow,  wax,  stearine,  soap,  bristles, 

9.  Gutta-percha,      

10.  Saw  mills,  furniture,  resin  connected  with  wood,    . 

11.  Gold  (2500  ponds),  platinum,  silver,  mercury,  cop- 

per, lead,  tin  and  zinc, 

12.  Cast  iron  (56,000,000  ponds), 

13.  Iron   and   steel    (nails,    wire,  machinery),  copper, 

bronze,  gold  and  other  goods  made  of  metal, 
and  machinery,  ...  

14.  Salt  (189,000,000  pouds),    coal    (367,000,000)    and  | 

other  solid  minerals, 1     .    .    . 

15.  Stone,    lime,  cement,   bricks,    porcelain,    fayence,  ; 

plaster  of  Paris,  glass  and  mirrors,      1      2,345 

16.  Chemicals  and    cosmetics,    colors,    matches,    and 

powder, 1         846 

17.  Petroleum  ( 260,000,000  pouds),         160 

18.  Sugar  (25,000,000  pouds),  spirit,  vodka,   beer  and  I 

tobacco ! 

19.  Flour,  meal,  starch,  molasses,  macaroni,  malt  and  j 

sweetmeats, 

20.  Other  comestibles  besides   above   (vegetable  oi 

preserves,  vinegar)  ■    . 

21.  Carriages,  musical  instruments,  pencils 


Total, 


7.241 
7,061 


380 


33,683 


346 


Value  of  poud  36  pounds. 
Value  of  paper  rouble  about  51  . 


While  the  table  shows  that  but  a  million  and  a  half  of  workmen  are 
engaged  in  manufacturing,  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  Russia  is  but 
entering  her  industrial  career  as  a  manufacturing  country.  The  rapid 
advance  made  in  recent  years  proves  beyond  a  question  that  Russia  will 
soon  be  numbered  among  the  greatest  manufacturing  nations  of  the  world. 
Cotton  goods,  including  yarns  and  tissues,  hold  first  place  among  manu- 
factures. The  indu.stry  dates  back  to  the  sixteenth  century.  The  arti- 
cles imported  so  pleased  the  Russians  that  it  became  their  aim  to  establish 
an  industry  of  their  own.  At  fir.st  foreign  yarns  were  used  by  the  peas- 
ants and  worked  up  on  hand  looms.  Soon  small  weaving  mills  were 
established  and  by  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  there  was  a 


Growth 


PROTECTION  TN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


considerable  number.  Dyeing  and  printing  were  introduced  and  from 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century  the  manufacture  of  calico  from 
English  spun  yarns  spread  be}'ond  the  Moscow  district  where  it  was 
introduced.  The  first  cotton  mill  was  erected  in  Moscow  in  1808,  with 
machinery  of  Russian  construction.  In  the  same  year  power  looms  were 
started  in  St.  Petersburg.  I^ittle  progress  was  made  up  to  1824,  but  in 
that  year  two  large  cotton  spinning  mills  were  .opened  at  St.  Petersburg' 
and  Moscow,  and  the  manufacture  advanced  considerably.  The  main 
difScuIty  was  in  obtaining  machinery,  but  from  1842,  when  England 
removed  her  restrictions  on  the  export  of  machinery,  the  mills  of  Russia 
developed  rapidly.  In  1843  there  were  forty  mills  in  Russia  with  35,000 
spindles.  In  ten  years  more  there  were  1,000,000  spindles  at  work  and 
the  product  of  each  spindle  had  increased  to  1728  pounds  annually. 
Weaving,  dyeing  and  printing  kept  pace  with  spinning.  In  1870  the 
number  of  spindles  was  estimated  at  2,796,283  and  in  i'886  at  3,912,806. 
At  the  present  time  the  number  of  spindles  exceeds  6,000,000  and  the 
number  of  looms  200,000. 

The  amount  of  raw  cotton  now  used  annually  by  Russia  amounts  to 
425,000,000  pounds,  of  which  100,000,000  pounds  are  produced  on  Rus- 
sian soil.  Some  of  the  native  cotton  is  preferred  to  the  American. 
Going  from  the  raw  cotton  to  the  yarns,  we  find  that  the  Russian  mills 
produce  now  over  360,000,000  pounds  of  5'arn  annually  and  import  only 
a  little  over  8,000,000  poimds,  or  a  trifle  over  2  per  cent.  The  import  of 
manufactured  finished  goods  is  even  less  significant,  it  being  less  than 
three-tenths  of  i  per  cent  of  the  amount  produced,  which  is  about  350,- 
000,000  pounds.  On  the  other  hand,  Russian  exports  of  cotton  goods 
though  small  are  increasing  annually.  .  While  only  187,000  pounds  were 
exported  to  Persia,  for  instance,  in  1883,  i,  124,676  pounds  were  exported 
in  1890,  or  six  times  as  much.  The  growth  of  the  output  during  the  ten 
years  of  the  last  decade  can  be  seen  from  the  following  data  collected  by 
the  Department  of  Trade  and  Manufacture: 

In  Millions  of  Roubles. 


1880. 

1881  . 

1882  . 

1883  . 

1884  . 

1885  . 
1886. 
1887  . 
1888. 
1889. 


74.1 
89.3 
99-3 
97.6 
91.4 
97-4 
93-9 
I05-7 
133-6 
187.6 


99-7 
124.6 
137-5 
1 16.7 
109.3 


107.2 
104.3 
157-2 
222.3 


I  Finishing.       Total. 


61. 1 
58.4 
60.7 
60.4 


S%^ 

,3.3 

47.8 

3-9 

67.7 

4.4 

75-3 

4-7 

72.8 

4-4 

240.4 
275.2 
300.8 
277.9 
262.3 
258.2 
252.S 
378-1 
370.8 
487.1 


Value  of  rouble  77.2  cents. 


BVSSTA. 


It  has  been  stated  that  the  nvimber  of  spindles  in  Russia  was  6,000,- 
000,  while  England  has  44,000,000,  but  the  yearly  consumption  per  spindle 
in  England  is  only  36.4  English  pounds  while  in  Russia  it  is  69.2  Eng- 
lish pounds  or  nearly  twice  as  much.  When  it  is  considered  that  the 
weekly  wages  of  spinners  are  from  $3  to  $7  per  week,  while  all  other 
workers  do  not  average  half  this,  it  will  be  seen  what  a  competitor  Russia 
may  soon  become  now  that  she  is  wholly  supplying  her  own  market  and 
beginning  to  export.  The  Russian  cotton  industry  has  grown  and  is  main- 
tained solely  because  of  a  protective  tariff.  It  is  estimated  that  two  and 
one-half  times  the  amount  now  sent  abroad  for  raw  cotton  would  be  sent 
for  manufactures  if  the  home  production  had  not  been  established  and 
maintained.     But  this  is  not  the  whole  benefit. 

The  development  of  the  cotton  manufacturing  industry  in  Russia  has  created  a 
special  branch  of  production,  namely,  the  cultivation  of  cotton,  with  a  view  to 
obtaining  the  necessary  material  for  spinning,  and  this  branch  may  be  said  to  have 
a  splendid  prospect  in  the  future.  In  the  near  future  probably  the  greater  part  of 
the  Russian  cotton  industry  will  be  supplied  with  native  raw  material.' 

The  duty  on  raw  cotton  has  gradually  advanced  till  now  it  is  about  three 
cents  per  pound.  Russia  has  no  free  raw  material  hobby.  Once  it  is 
seen  that  any  article  from  the  so-called  raw  material  to  the  finished  pro- 
duct can  be  grown  or  made,  it  receives  at  once  such  protection  as  will 
encourage  its  production.  First  the  finished  cotton  goods  were  given 
protection  and  the  industry  as  we  have  seen,  has  grown  to  immense  pro- 
portions. At  first  all  3'arns  were  imported,  but  as  soon  as  it  was  shown 
that  yarns  could  be  made  at  home,  protection  was  granted  and  Russia  now 
practically  makes  all  her  own  yams.  Then  it  was  seen  that  the  raw  cot- 
ton itself  could  be  produced  on  Russian  soil.  Seed  was  procured,  protec- 
tion given,  and  now  the  Russians  claim  that  in  a  few  years  they  will 
produce  all  their  own  cotton.  If  consumers  were  at  first  asked  to  make 
some  sacrifices,  they  have  been  and  will  be  more  than  compensated  by  the 
employment  and  wages  gained  in  all  branches  of  the  industrj\  Like  the 
farmer's  seed,  protection  does  at  first  cost  something,  but  the  abundant 
harvest  so  far  overshadows  the  first  trifling  cost  as  to  cause  it  to  be  for- 
gotten in  the  wealth  of  lasting  benefits. 

The  production  of  flax,  hemp  and  jute  goods  occupies  second  place 
among  Russian  manufactures.  The  industry  dates  back  to  the  sixteenth 
century,  but  made  little  progress  till  Peter  the  Great  granted  privileges 
to  the  manufacturers  and  forbade  the  importation  of  foreign  linen.  By  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  production  had  reached  3,744,000 
pounds.  The  demand  for  linen  for  the  army  at  different  periods  has 
greatly  aided  the  development  of  the  industry,  but  it  was  found  that  cotton 
goods  were  in  greater  demand  and  the  result  was,  for  a  time,  unfavorable 
to  the  linen  industry. 

^  The  Industries  of  Russia. 


rROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Ill  1845,  however,  the  government  ever  alert  in  recent  years  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  people,  granted  certain  rewards  to  flax  spinners  and 
factories,  with  the  result  that  the  industry  took  a  new  start  with  most 
significant  results.  Though  the  duties  were  lowered  in  1850,  j-et  the 
demands  of  the  Crimean  war,  followed  by  the  lack  of  cotton  during  our 
war,  was  the  cause  of  establishing  the  industry  on  a  firm  footing.  Dur- 
ing the  twenty-five  years  following  the  Crimean  war  the  development  of 
the  flax  spinning  trade  far  exceeded  that  of  linen,  but  the  increase  in  the 
linen  trade  was  not  small.  Since  1880  the  increase  has  been  large  in  both 
branches.  The  average  annual  flax  crop  of  Russia  is  now  about  630,- 
000,000  pounds,  over  half  the  amount  cultivated  on  the  surface  of  the 
earth.  About  two-thirds  of  this  amount  is  exported  and  one-third  con- 
sumed at  home. 

The  amount  of  hemp  produced  in  European  Russia  is  about  300,000,- 
000  pounds,  or  40  per  cent  of  the  European  production.  Less  than  half 
is  exported.  The  import  of  yarn,  rope,  etc.,  is  so  insignificant  as  to 
merit  no  notice.  There  is  no  import  whatever  of  hempen  or  jute  yarn. 
The  import  of  linen  and  hemp  fabrics  which  in  1878  amounted  to  over 
5,000,000  pounds,  in  1891  was  less  than  250,000  pounds.  In  short,  the 
total  importation  of  such  goods  is  only  about  5  per  cent  of  the  total  home 
production  of  flax  spinning  mills  and  rope  and  cordage  factories.  This 
import  is  more  than  covered  by  the  exports  so  that  Russia  may  be  said  to 
consume  her  entire  production  of  flax,  hemp  and  jute  goods,  as  she  does 
that  of  her  cotton  goods.  What  this  production  is  can  be  seen  from  the 
following  table : 

Roubles. 

Production  of  Flax  Spiniiiiig  Mills  in  18S9 17,600,000 

Linen  Mills  in  1SS9, 21,100,000 

"  Jute  Mills  in  1S89 3,500,000 

Rope  and  Cord  in  1S89, 5,690,000 

In  1889  there  were  245,588  flax  spindles  in  Russia,  most  of  the  fac- 
tories working  night  and  day.  This  would  be  equivalent  to  412,588  for- 
eign spindles.  In  1889  there  were  7312  power  looms  equivalent  to  12,284 
looms  elsewhere.       The  following  table  will  show  the  amount  of  hemp 


fibre    produced    and 
European  countries : 


consumed    from    1884   to 


in    the   principal 


Crop  of  Fibre. 

Russia, 17,500,000  pouds.' 

Germany,      4,041,000  " 

Austro-Hungary 2,773,000  " 

France, 2,225,000 

Great  Britain 1,312,000  " 

Belgium, 1,202,000       " 

Italy 1,095,000  " 

'36  pounds. 


6,248,000    pouds. 

5,646,000  " 

4,175,000  " 

5,790,000  " 

5,961,000  " 

2,057,000  " 

1,091,000  " 


i 


RUSSIA. 

The  hemp  crop  and  consumption  for  the  same  period  is  seen  in  the 
following  table: 

Crop.  Consumption. 

Russia, 8,500,000  pouds.  5,039,000  pouds 

Italy 4,500,000  "  3,547,000        " 

Austro-Hungary 4,270,000       "  4,403,000       " 

France, 2,500,000  "  3,522,000       " 

Germany 850,000  "  2,290,000       " 

Belgium  , 60,000  "  428,000       " 

Great  Britain, 3,289,9991     " 

No  figures  are  at  hand  to  show  the  wages  paid,  but  it  may  be  safely 
assumed  that  they  follow  other  textile  trades  and  are  at  least  one-third 
those  paid  in  the  United  States. 

Again  we  must  go  to  the  reign  of  Peter  the  Great  to  find  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Russian  woolen  industr}',  and  the  wants  of  the  Russian  army 
were  the  cause  of  the  first  manufacture.  In  1712  an  order  was  issued  that 
the  arm^'  should  wear  onl)^  textures  of  Russian  make.  Peter  the  Great 
interested  himself  in  sheep  farming  and  in  the  manufacture  of  cloth,  but 
the  industry  developed  slowly,  its  growth  really  dating  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present  century.  In  1822,  the  production  of  the  woolen  mills 
reached  9,000,000  j^ards,  which  exceeded  the  requirements  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  industry  then  was  mainly  Polish.  In  1830,  390  mills  employed 
67,000  people  and  the  production  had  nearly  doubled  in  yards.  The 
industry  was  now  established  in  many  parts  of  the  empire  and  by  1856 
the  woolen  mills  could  produce  about  30,000,000  yards  of  cloth.  The 
industry  showed  alternate  depression  and  revival  till  1885,  since  which 
time  a  wonderful  development  has  taken  place.  Three-quarters  of  the 
spindles  of  the  Empire,  however,  are  in  Poland.  Of  the  wool  u.sed 
in  Russian  mills,  the  greater  portion  is  of  home  production.  The 
total  amount  of  wool  grown  in  Russia  in  i89i,was  about  290,000,000 
pounds,  but  little  less  than  the  production  of  the  United  States,  while  the 
number  of  sheep  was  53,000,000,  or  8,000,000  more  than  those  of  the 
United  States.  The  wool,  however,  is  of  a  coarse  quality,  all  the  finer 
grades  being  imported.  About  25  per  cent  of  all  yarns  consumed  is 
imported,  and  for  the  five  years  from  1885  to  1889,  inclusive,  the  importa- 
tion of  woolen  goods  was  only  5  per  cent  of  the  total  production.  In  1889 
the  total  output  of  the  Russian  woolen  industrj'  was  in  value  about  $So,- 
000,000,  a  slight  falling  off  from  preceding  years.  Since  the  operation  of 
the  tariff  of  1891,  however,  the  industry  has  taken  a  new  life,  as  have  all 
manufactures,  and  the  annual  production  now  probablj'  amounts  in  value 
to  $100,000,000.  The  average  annual  exports  for  the  last  ten  years 
amounts  to  about  $7,000,000.  In  summing  up  the  condition  of  the 
woolen  industry  of  Russia,  the  following  extract  from  the  official  state- 
ments of  the  government  will  be  found  interesting  and  valuable: 

1  The  Industries  of  Russia,    Vol.  I.,  p.  33. 
30 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


The  manufacture  of  woolen  felted  goods,  of  coarse  and  medium  classes,  is  fully 
developed  and  capable  of  supplying  the  home  demands.  Besides  the  considerable 
amount  of  cloth,  supplied  for  clothing  the  army,  the  manufactories  produce  a  no 
less  considerable  quantity  of  goods  for  the  requirements  of  the  poor,  as  well  as  for 
the  better  classes  of  the  inhabitants.  Russian  manufacturers  can  flatter  themselves 
that  nowhere  in  Europe  are  the  armies  provided  with  better  and  cheaper  cloth  than 
in  Russia.  This  manufacture  of  woolen  felted  goods  should  be  considered  all  the 
more  independent  as  it  has  a  sufficiently  suitable  native  raw  material,  and  is  in  pos- 
session at  the  present  time  of  an  adequate  supply  of  spindles  for  carded  wool  spin- 
ning. With  regard  to  the  fabrication  of  fine  cloths,  this  branch  of  the  industrj- 
develops  comparatively  slowly,  although  lately  visible  progress  has  been  made. 
Reverting  to  the  manufacture  of  combed  yarn  goods,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that 
only  at  the  present  time  its  position  is  becoming  more  or  less  firm,  as  only  for  the 
last  ten  years  has  it  had  the  possibility  of  obtaining  yarn,  at  any  rate  the  greater 
part  of  the  amount  required,  of  home  production,  through  which  it  has  acquired  the 
right  of  great  independence  of  foreign  industries.  For  the  complete  success  of  the 
fabrication  of  combed  wool  goods,  which  gives  so  much  hope  on  account  of  the 
modern  condition  of  its  qualificative  element,  the  further  development  of  spinning 
is  necessary.  The  better  this  branch  of  Russian  industry  is  established,  the  easier 
will  it  be  to  reach  an  independent  position  in  the  universal  markets  and  the  more 
independence  will  be  attained  by  Russian  sheep  farming,  which,  with  the  increased 
home  demand  for  wool  and  a  suitable  government  protection,  will  be  able  untiringly 
to  develop  in  quantity  as  well  as  in  quality. ' 

The  high  price  of  silk  goods  will  account  for  the  less  rapid  growth 
of  the  industry  as  compared  with  that  of  the  other  textiles.  Silk,  how- 
ever, has  been  used  to  some  extent  from  the  very  earliest  times.  To  the 
time  of  Peter  the  Great  we  must  go  again,  to  find  the. first  silk  weaving 
mills,  which  by  1809  had  grOwn  to  194  in  number.  By  1850  the  value  of 
the  product  of  silk  mills  was  $4,800,000,  and  by  1891  it  had  reached 
$10,000,000.  The  silk  mills  of  Russia  use  considerably  more  foreign  than 
domestic  raw  material,  the  process  of  preparing  the  material  from  the 
cocoons  being  but  little  developed.  The  duty  on  twisted  silk  was  raised 
by  the  tariff  of  1891  and  the  government  has  instituted  measures  for  the 
development  of  the  silk  worm  industry  so  that  it  is  expected  that  the  silk 
industry  from  the  cocoon  will  soon  show  the  same  degree  of  advance 
as  that  seen  in  other  industries  Even  now  the  quality  of  certain 
Russian  silks  are  not  surpassed  by  any  imported,  while  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  brocade  Russia  stands  unrivaled.  The  supply  of  Russian  mills 
is  not  yet  equal  to  the  demand,  and  is  held  in  check  by  the  high  price  of 
foreign  material.  With  the  increased  production  of  raw  silk  at  home  will 
come  increased  output  of  all  grades  of  silk. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  that  Russia  is  making  great  prog- 
ress in  textile  manufactures  from  the  production  of  raw  material  to  the 
finished  fabric.  It  nmst  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  figures  given  repre- 
sent only  the  large  mills  and  regular  establishments.  The  thousands  of 
peasants  who  spin  and  weave  not  only  for  home  use  but  for  trade,  are  not 

'  The  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  I.,  p.  57. 


taken  into  account  in  the  government  reports.  Millions  of  dollars'  worth 
of  textiles  are  annually  made  by  the  peasants  and  sold  at  the  big  fairs 
which  form  a  distinctive  feature  of  Russian  industrial  life.  Could  the  figures 
of  this  annual  production  be  obtained,  some  idea  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
textile  industry  of  Russia  could  be  had,  and  it  would  compare  most  favor 
ably  with  any  other  nation.  It  has  till  recently  been  the  sole  aim  of  the 
Russians  to  supply  their  own  wants,  but  with  their  enormous  resources  for 
raising  cotton,  wool,  flax  and  silk,  and  with  the  best  protective  tariff  now 
in  existence,  Russia  from  now  on  must  be  rated  among  the  foremost  of 
manufacturing  countries. 

The  following  table  shows  the  development  of  the  paper  industry  : 


Period. 

Number  of 
mills. 

Yearly  production 
in  roubles. 

Number  of 
hands. 

Ivan  the  Terrible 

2 

4 
13 

6? 
87 
104 

165 

III 
136 
139 
134 
131 

It 

Alex  Michailovich,  .... 

Peter  I., 

150,000 

1804, 

'830.        

1S50, 

1S56,       .    . 

3,225,000 
3.661,314 
5,682,172 

10,876,000 
13,677,000 
12,451,000 
14,217,000 
14,697,000 
17,908,000 

1S62 

12,280 

1879. 

1880                                .    .               

10,890 
11,510 
11,719 

I2!35S 
■3304 
17,402' 

iSSi 

1882,- 

18S3, 

1884 

1889; 

If  the  manufacture  of  wood  pulp  be  included  the  total  figures  of  the 
Russian  paper  industry  would  be  in  1889,  364  mills,  employing  30,000 
hands  with  value  of  product  amounting  to  26,000,000  roubles  or  about 
$19,000,000.  But  the  supply  does  not  yet  meet  the  home  demand  and  the 
amount  of  all  kinds  of  paper  imported  in  1890  reached  the  value  of 
6,811,328  roubles  or  about  $5,000,000.  The  exports  amounted  to  about 
$1,000,000  worth. 

Tanning  is  among  the  very  oldest  of  Russian  industries.  The  well- 
known  product,  Russia  leather,  has  been  exported  since  the  seventeenth 
century.  At  the  time  of  the  acce.s.sion  of  Catherine  II.,  in  1762,  there 
were  25  tanneries,  and  at  the  end  of  her  reign  in  1796  the  number  had 
increased  to  84.  In  1790  the  exports  were  as  follows:  Russia  leather, 
1,258,106  roubles;  other  dressed  hides,  22,852  roubles;  pelts,  6727  roubles. 

'  The  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  I.,  p.  68. 


PROTECTION  IX  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Wars  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  centurj-  created  a  great 
demand  for  boots  and  other  leathern  goods,  and  in  1814  there  were  1530 
tanneries  at  work.  In  1 870  the  number  of  tanneries  had  increased  to 
2899,  and  the  yearly  production  was  valued  at  24,991,617  roubles.  In 
1880  the  production  was  about  40,000,000  roubles'  worth.  The  imports 
amounted  to  about  15,000,000  roubles,  but  are  graduallj'  declining  as  the 
home  output  increases.  The  village  leather  trade  is  one  of  the  most 
important  in  Russia,  the  tanning  being  about  one-third  that  of  the  fac- 
tories. The  wrought  leather  production  in  150  districts  amounts  to 
26,000,000  roubles,  and  gives  employment  to  85,000  men.  The  large 
factories  do  not  compete  much  in  this  branch.  40,000  men  are  employed 
in  tanning  sheep  skins,  and  the  yearly  production  is  valued  at  20,000,000 
roubles,  or  ten  times  that  of  the  factories.  The  quality  of  all  kinds  of  goods 
shows  a  constant  improvement,  and  Russia  bids  fair  soon  to  lead  the  world  in 
leather  manufactures,  though  for  the  want  of  machinerj^  she  will  hardly  be 
a  competitor  with  the  United  States  in  the  production  of  boots  and  shoes. 

It  was  not  until  1S30  that  the  India  rubber  trade  sprang  up  in  Russia. 
Caoutchouc  made  its  appearance  in  Europe  at  the  end  of  the  last  centurj- 
while  gutta-percha  did  not  appear  until  the  middle  of  the  present  centur}-. 
The  discoveries  of  the  present  century  in  connection  with  various  processes 
placed  the  India  rubber  trade  of  Russia  on  a  level  with  other  industries. 
The  government  saw  the  necessities  of  this  trade  in  1857  and  raised  the 
import  duties  on  foreign  India  rubber  and  gutta-percha  goods.  In  1S60 
there  were  five  mills  employing  298  hands  and  having  a  production  of 
412,160  roubles.  The  greate.st  success  followed  and  the  quality  of  the 
goods  manufactured  was  such  as  to  find  a  large  sale  abroad.  The  produc- 
tion, for  instance,  of  India  rubber  galoshes  in  i860,  amounted  to  220,223 
pairs.  In  1870  it  had  increased  to  1,804,634  pairs.  While  the  production 
in  1887  amounted  to  3,300,000  pairs,  of  which  2,750,000  were  sold  in 
Russia,  400,000  were  exported  to  Sweden  and  Norway,  and  150,000  to 
Denmark  and  other  countries.  In  St.  Petersburg  there  is  one  India  rubber 
manufactory  called  the  Russian- American  Company,  which  was  established 
in  i860,  and  in  1878  had  a  working  capital  of  2,000,000  roubles,  with  a 
reserve  fund  of  i  ,400,000  roubles.  The  production  amounted  to  5 ,000,000 
roubles,  consisting  of  galoshes  and  all  kinds  of  rubber  goods.  The  present 
capacity  is  sufficient  for  the  production  to  the  value  of  10,000,000  roubles. 
The  rapid  progress  of  the  Russian  India  rubber  trade  has  been  accompanied 
by  a  corresponding  decline  in  imports  of  foreign  made  goods,  while  the 
exports  have  steadily  increased.  The  exportation  in  1887  amounted  to 
371,400  roubles,  while  in  1889  it  had  increased  to  1,526,542  roubles. 
From  1885  to  1890  the  India  rubber  industry  of  Ru.ssia  increased  fully  50 
per  cent.  The  imports  decreased  almost  30  per  cent  and  the  exports 
increased  over  300  per  cent.  The  present  export  is  about  15  per  cent  of 
the  total  production  and  the  import  about  3  per  cent. 


Russia  abounds  in  timber  to  such  an  extent  that  wood  working  has 
alwaj's  been  one  of  its  most  extensive  industries,  keeping  a  large  ninnber 
of  men  emploj'ed  and  having  a  distinct  influence  upon  the  Hves  and  habits 
of  the  people.  The  greatest  development  is  seen  in  those  localities  rich 
in  timber,  but  in  places  where  the  forests  are  already  consumed,  the 
people  still  carry  on  their  calling,  obtaining  material  from  other  places. 
The  most  common,  as  well  as  the  most  useful,  tree  which  grows  in  Russia, 
is  the  ordinary  pine  and  is  found  in  two-thirds  of  the  whole  extent  of 
European  Russia.  The  next  in  order  is  the  fir,  followed  by  the  Siberian 
cedar.  Other  trees  are  the  birch,  aspen  tree,  lime  and  the  oak.  From 
the  very  earliest  times  Russia  has  been  an  exporter  of  wood  in  a  raw  or  half 
manufactured  state,  the  export  of  manufactured  wood  being  small.  In 
recent  years  the  exportation  has  amounted  to  about  55,000,000  roubles,  of 
which  40  per  cent  has  gone  to  Germany,  33  per  cent  to  Great  Britain,  6 
per  cent  to  Holland  and  the  rest  scattered.  The  export  of  manufactured 
wooden  goods  is  less  than  1,000,000  roubles  per  annum.  The  imports  of 
certain  classes  of  finer  woods  amounted  in  1S90  to  about  6, 500,000  roubles, 
in  addition  to  which  about  1,000,000  roubles'  worth  of  wood  pulp  is  now 
annually  imported.  Statistics  of  mills  and  manufactories  engaged  in  wood- 
working show  a  considerable  development  in  this  industry  in  recent  years. 
The  following  tables  will  show  the  progress  made  between  1881  and  1890: 

Saw  Mill  Trade. 

Number  of  mills.  Production  in  thousands  of  roubles.        Number  of  hands. 

1S81 516  15,41s  11,319 

1890 631  21,566  17,986 

Cabinet  Making  and  Joinery  Trade. 

Number  of  works.  Production  in  thousands  of  roubles.        Number  of  hands. 

1S81 154  2,584  4,424 

1890 108  4,301  5,864 

Turnery  and  Sm.all  Work. 

Number  of  factories.  Production  in  thousands  of  roubles.        Number  of  hands. 

1881 53  452  513 

1890 62  1,371  2,739 

Mat  Making. 

Number  of  factories.  Production  in  thousands  of  roubles.        Number  of  hands. 

1881 69  536  4,997 

1890 78  4S2  5,532 

Wood  Pulp. 

Number  of  mills.  Production  in  thousands  of  roubles.  Number  of  hands. 

1881 3  65  91 

1890 19  521  437 

The  saw  mill  industry,  as  is  seen  by  the  table,  is  the  most  largely  de- 
veloped manufacture,  but  this  is  exceeded  by  the  export  trade  of  beams, 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTIIEI!  COfNTfUES. 


fters,  planks  and  other  kinds  of  sawn  timber,  which  exceeds  over 
40,000,000  per  annum  or  double  the  production  of  the  saw  mills,  and  as 
the  timber  consumed  in  the  couritrj'  is  sawed  by  hand  and  not  seen  in  the 
production  of  the  manufactories,  it  will  be  readih'  conceded  that  the  whole 
industry  is  of  enormous  proportions.  In  fact,  this  phase  of  Russian  life 
is  nowhere  more  fully  seen  than  in  the  wood-working  industry.  The 
number  of  large  manufactories  is  comparatively  small,  while  the  produc- 
tion of  artisans  working  at  home  is  doubtless  many  times  greater  than 
shown  by  the  official  figures.  The  whole  of  Russia  is  dotted  with 
wood-working  concerns,  using  the  wood  of  the  locality  till  it  is  con- 
sumed and  then  generally  keeping  to  the  same  classes  of  work,  getting 
the  necessary  material  from  other  localities  if  necessary.  In  man\- 
parts  of  the  country  artistic  productions,  car\^ed  work  in  artistic  design 
and  quality  to  compete  with  any  such  goods  made,  are  fashioned.  These 
often  find  their  way  into  the  hands  of  middlemen,  who  put  foreign  trade 
marks  on  them  and  pass  them  off  for  imported  goods. 

The  industry  of  basket  making  is  not  inconsiderable,  though  no  official 
statistics  concerning  it  can  be  found. 

From  very  ancient  times  pitch  and  tar  have  not  only  been  produced 
in  Russia  for  home  use,  but  have  been  exported.  Pitch  has  principally 
been  .sent  to  England  and  turpentine  to  Germany,  where  it  is  in  great 
demand  because  of  its  quality  and  cheapness.  The  tar  industry  is  almost 
exclusively  confined  to  the  peasants,  but  has  shown  great  improvement  in 
recent  years  in  the  foreign  processes  and  in  tlie  use  of  the  material  for 
fuel.  The  industry-  of  making  pitch  is  especially  Russian  and  has  lately 
attained  great  development,  especially  in  the  forest  regions.  It  is  estimated 
that  the  Ru.ssian  forests  produce  yearly  144,000,000  pounds  of  pitch  and 
72,000,000  of  tar,  540,000  pounds  of  resin  and  2, 160,000  pounds  of  tur- 
pentine. 

Even  before  the  reign  of  Peter  the  Great  the  manufacture  of  articles 
from  metals  was  a  prominent  industry  in  Ru.ssia.  For  instance,  the  forging 
of  bells  began  soon  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity.  Even  more 
ancient  was  the  forging  of  side  arms,  which  was  especially  developed 
during  the  early  civil  and  foreign  wars.  Then  the  Russians  being  a  very 
religious  people,  always  completing  and  decorating  churches,  the  making 
of  church  ornaments  and  trimmings  dates  from  very  ancient  times. 
Moscow  was  the  chief  centre  of  the  industry  prior  to  the  reign  of  Peter 
the  Great.  There  were  found  the  best  gunmakers  and  goldsmiths,  among 
whom  were  many  experienced  mechanics  who  had  come  from  abroad  under 
inducements  made  by  the  Russian  Government.  Under  Peter  the  Great  the 
industry  made  remarkable  progress,  and  works  were  organized  in  different 
parts  of  Russia  simultaneously  with  the  founding  of  St.  Petersburg.  The 
chief  sources  of  metal  supplies  for  all  trades  were  the  Ural  Mountains,  the 
rivers  Kama  and  Volga  serving  to  convey  the  metals  to  the  different  scenes 


of  industry.  Like  most  of  the  industries  of  Russia,  the  manufacture 
of  goods  from  metal  can  be  divided  into  two  branches,  that  carried  on  in 
the  large  establishments,  and  the  extensive  production  carried  on  by 
peasants.  The  latter  is  for  the  most  part  handwork,  which  competes 
with  the  products  of  the  manufacturing  industry,  the  articles  being  of 
excellent  quality  and  workmanship.  The  Russian  peasant  is  occupied  for 
the  most  part  in  farming,  but  during  the  long  winter  his  spare  time  is 
devoted  to  the  turning  out  of  various  forms  of  handwork.  The  surplus 
thus  earned  b)'  peasants  improves  their  condition  and  also  enables  them  the 
better  to  meet  the  taxes  imposed  by  the  government,  and  in  turn  the  gov- 
ernment adopts  measures  to  sustain  and  improve  the  productions  of  the 
peasants.  The  metal  productions  of  Russia  can  be  divided  into  the  follow- 
ing cla.sses : 

1.  Products  of  the  noble  metals  and  jewelry. 

2.  Products  of  copper  and  copper  alloys. 

3.  Products  of  lead,  tin,  zinc  and  their  alloys. 

4.  Products  of  smithcraft  and  in  sheet  iron. 

5.  Cast  iron  and  steel. 

6.  Artillery  arms,  guns  and  implements. 

7.  Side  arms  and  cutlery ;  instruments  for  working  different  mate- 
rials ;  scythes  and  sickles. 

8.  Wire  manufactures. 

9.  Locks  and  different  productions  of  the  locksmith. 

Statistics  recording  the  extent  and  cost  of  these  industries  are  very- 
incomplete  and  an  idea  of  the  total  manufactures  and  trade  can  only  be 
gathered  from  a  brief  examination  of  each  class  of  industry. 

Gold  and  silver  articles  date  from  very  ancient  times,  but  have  been 
developed  largely  and  improved  since  the  introduction  of  Christianity. 
The  making  of  jewelry  dates  from  the  sixteenth  centur3%  and  was  begun 
in  Moscow,  which  was  then  the  residence  of  the  Court  and  grandees.  It 
is  recorded  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  were  in 
Moscow  43  goldsmiths  and  232  silversmiths,  many  of  whom  were 
jewelers.  Even  now  the  industry  is  chiefly  centred  in  St.  Petersburg 
and  Moscow.  The  peasants  in  some  of  the  villages  on  the  Volga 
give  their  whole  time  to  the  .silver  and  jewelry  industry.  The  articles 
made  are  sold  all  over  Russia,  even  in  the  large  cities.  The  middle- 
men obtain  them  very  cheapl}-  from  the  peasants  and  make  large 
profits.  In  one  region  alone  more  than  15,000,000  pieces  are  made  yearly. 
These  consist  of  earrings,  rings,  brooches,  bracelets,  lockets,  chains  and 
neck  crosses.  Agents  and  merchants  are  in  constant  communication  with 
the  dealers  of  large  towns,  and  as  soon  as  a  new  pattern  is  produced  send 
it  to  the  peasants  who  reproduce  it  exactly.  The  production  of  leaf  sil- 
ver and  leaf  gold  is  about  500,000  roubles  j^early,  the  latter  being  higher 
in  quality  than  that   of   any   other   country.     Russian  gold   and  silver 


^anufa, 

2r^ 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


thread  also  exceed  foreign  make  and  Russian  gold  tissue  cloth  with 
parcha  is  unrivaled  in  the  world.  The  making  of  articles  from  platinum 
has  only  recently  been  introduced  and  the  industry  has  not  reached  very 
large  dimensions.  The  total  production  of  jewelry  and  precious  stones  is 
estimated  to  amount  to  about  7,000,000  roubles  yearly.  The  import  is 
inconsiderable  and  the  export  still  less. 

Although  the  copper  foundries  of  Russia  were  not  established  until 
the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  some  articles  were  produced  in 
very  ancient  times.  Going  back  as  far  as  the  tenth  century  wie  find  that 
the  making  of  bells  was  the  principal  industry  of  that  time,  and  by  the 
seventeenth  century  the  industry  was  well  established.  In  1653  was  pro- 
duced in  Moscow  the  celebrated  bell  called  the  Tsar  Kolokol.  This  bell 
is  the  largest  in  the  world,  is  eighteen  feet  in  diameter  and  nineteen 
feet  high,  and  almost  400,000  pounds  of  copper  were  used  in  its  construc- 
tion. Owing  to  the  fact  that  bell  making  dates  back  so  far,  and  to  the 
great  demand  that  has  always  existed  for  bells,  the  industry'  has  attained 
great  proportions  and  reached  a  state  of  progress  practicallj^  unequaled 
in  the  world,  especially  in  large  bells  ranging  in  weight  from  1000  to 
40,000  pounds  each.  The  peasants  are  engaged  in  making  small  bells 
which  are  principally  worn  on  harness  and  used  in  summer  and  winter 
with  all  kinds  of  vehicles.  The  total  value  of  Russian  bell  production  is 
about  1,000,000  roubles  annually.  The  production  of  household  utensils 
from  copper  was  begun  in  very  ancient  times,  but  has  hardly  kept  pace 
with  some  other  industries,  probably  because  of  the  cestliness  of  copper 
itself.  Bronze  and  similar  productions  are  fabricated  in  very  small  quan- 
tities. The  manufacture  of  lamps  and  their  belongings  is  confined  mostly 
to  Warsaw  and  the  annual  production  amounts  to  about  500,000  roubles. 
The  most  extensive  purpose  for  which  copper  alloys  are  used  is  in  the 
manufacture  of  shells  for  cartridges.  Brass  fixtures  till  within  a  short 
time  were  wholly  imported  from  Germany,  but  are  now  manufactured  to 
some  extent  in  St.  Petersburg  and  Moscow,  and  the  production  amounts 
to  about  2,000,000  roubles  annually.  In  recent  years  too  the  manufac- 
ture of  articles  for  gas  and  electric  lighting,  formerly  imported,  has 
developed  greatly.  The  total  output  of  bronze  and  brass  articles,  includ- 
ing both  those  made  by  hand  and  those  of  manufacturing  e.stablishments, 
amounts  to  about  16,000,000  roubles  annually. 

Articles  of  zinc,  tin,  lead,  etc.,  are  not  as  yet  manufactured  to  any 
great  extent,  the  annual  output  being  about  9,000,000  roubles. 

While  the  productions  of  blacksmiths  and  kindred  productions  date 
back  to  the  earliest  period,  still  the  greatest  development  has  been  noted 
in  recent  vears.  Different  industries  are  maintained  for  the  most  part  by 
themselves.  For  instance,  in  one  region  chains  and  anchors  are  forged, 
in  another,  carriage  fixtures,  in  still  another,  scoops  and  shovels,  basins, 
pails,  spades,  hoes  and  stoves  and  the  like.     Perhaps  the  forgesmiths  are 


the  most  widely  scattered  craft  to  be  found  in  the  Empire  and  hold  the 
most  conspicuous  place  in  industry.  Hand  forging  is  found  very  gener- 
ally, excepting  in  the  case  of  nails,  which  are  now  made  bj-  machinery. 
The  first  cast-iron  foundry  was  established  in  1637  by  a  Dutchman.  Still 
the  founding  of  steel  has  only  recently  been  introduced.  The  customs 
laws  of  Russia  have  had  no  inconsiderable  influence  upon  her  iron  indus- 
try, especially  in  recent  years.  First  the  using  of  domestic  raw  materials 
has  been  encouraged,  such  as  pig  iron,  iron  ore  and  domestic  coal  as  fuel. 
In  1850  the  duty  upon  pig  iron  was  highly  protective  and  soon  after  the 
importation  by  sea  was  totally  prohibited.  At  the  end  of  the  Crimean 
war,  when  the  completing  of  railway  lines  began,  the  government  resolved 
to  facilitate  the  importation  of  metals  from  abroad.  According  to  the 
tariff  of  1857  pig  iron  and  ore  were,  for  the  first  time,  allowed  to  be  imported 
by  sea,  but  their  importation  was  again  prohibited  soon  after.  In  186  r  pig 
iron  was  imported  free  of  duty  and  the  free  import  of  all  kinds  of  machinery 
and  implements  was  granted,  which,  of  course,  operated  against  the  Russian 
machinery  building  industry.  It  was  not  until  18S0,  however,  that  the 
privilege  of  free  importation  was  abolished.  In  that  year  duties  were 
levied  upon  all  machines  and  tools  made  of  wrought  and  cast  iron  and 
steel.  In  1882  the  duty  was  made  still  higher.  Under  this  influence 
machine  construction  and  the  manufacture  of  rails  developed  rapidly. 
The  railways  now  in  operation  began  to  bring  ore  and  coal  nearer  to  the 
mills,  and,  when  the  Ekaterininsk  Railway,  in  the  south  of  Russia,  was 
finished,  it  opened  up  mines  with  inexhaustible  veins  of  fuel.  In  1884 
the  government  raised  the  dutj'  on  cast-iron  and  still  protected  coal  min- 
ing. Almost  yearly  since  that  time  to  the  tariff  of  189 1  duties  have  been 
levied  to  meet  particular  needs  of  the  iron  and  steel  industries.  The 
result  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  cast-iron  smelting  has  just  doubled  in  ten 
years,  while  the  importation  has  fallen  off  70  per  cent.  The  manufacture 
of  wrought-iron  and  steel  has  increased  50  per  cent,  while  the  importation 
has  fallen  off  70  per  cent.  The  imports  of  wrought  iron  and  steel  goods 
in  the  same  period  have  fallen  off  66  per  cent  and  the  imports  of  machin- 
ery have  gradually  declined  from  year  to  year.  Until  1884  coal  and  coke 
were  imported  free  of  all  duty;  since  the  imposition  of  the  duty  in  that 
year,  it  has  been  raised  from  time  to  time  with  most  beneficial  results  to 
native  industry.  While  the  development  of  the  iron  industry  of  Russia 
as  compared  with  other  countries  is  practically  small  and  almo.st  in  its 
infancy  as  regards  the  amount  of  output,  there  is  no  doubt  that  with  the 
operation  of  the  tariff  of  1 89 1 ,  combined  with  the  fact  of  the  inexhaustible 
mines  now  being  connected  with  manufactures  by  railways  which  have 
been  recently  opened,  that  in  a  very  few  years  the  iron  and  steel  trade 
of  Russia  will  compare  most  favorably  with  that  of  other  great  nations. 

In  the  manufacture  of  guns  and  artillery  .supplies,  ammunition  and 
firearms  Russia  occupies  a  high  position,  competing  with  other  parts  of 


PEOTECriON  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Europe  and  with  America  in  qualit}'  of  work.  The  gunsmiths  of  Russia 
were  renowned  even  in  the  sixteenth  century.  At  first  guns  were  made  at 
home,  the  first  armory  being  organized  in  1705.  The  articles  which  are 
used  as  a  means  of  government  defence  are  more  or  less  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  government  itself,  there  being  but  few  private  gunmakers  in 
the  empire.  The  making  of  side-arms  has  also  been  carried  on  for 
centuries  and  the  artificers  have  attained  a  high  degree  of  proficiency. 
Cutlery  in  Russia  is  generally  made  by  hand.  Knives  of  the  best  quality 
are  imported  from  Germany  and  Austria,  as  Russian  workmen  experience 
considerable  difficulty  in  making  knives  of  cast  steel  owing  to  the  scarcity 
of  Russian  metal  suitable  to  this  work. 

Wire  drawing  is  an  industry  long  established  inRu.ssia,  although  its 
development  to  an}'  considerable  extent  dates  only  since  the  time  of  the 
electric  telegraph.  The  amount  of  wire  and  wire  nails  produced  in  1890 
was,  of  the  former,  46,800,000  pounds,  and,  of  the  latter,  43,200,000 
pounds.  Innumerable  small  wares  are  made  throughout  the  realm  both 
in  manufactories  and  by  the  peasants.  The  enumeration  and  description 
would  take  too  much  space  for  a  work  of  this  nature.  The  following 
table  will  give,  however,  a  very  comprehensive  view  of  the  metallic 
productions  of  Russia  with  the  foreign  trade  and  consumption  : 


Kinds  of  W.iu 


Gold  and  silver  goods,     .    .     . 
Wares  of  brass  and  its  alloys, 
Wares  of  zinc,  tin  and  lead,    . 
Blacksmith  wares,  iron  and  tin. 
Cast  iron  and  cast  steel,    .    .    . 

Cutlery,  

Implements  and  tools,  .... 
Scythes  and  sickles,  .... 
Wire  and  wire  goods,  .... 
Locks  and  locksmith  wares,    . 


In  Thousands  of  Roubles. 


7,000 

809 

16,000 

1,874 

8,500 

348 

27,500 

1,5" 

21,000 

199 

2,425 

133 

500 

1,871 

275 

1.757 

22,500 

2,117 

15,000 

2,396 

692 


29,011 
21,104 

2,558 
2,371 

2,032 

24,617 

16,704 


Supplied 
by  Home 


94-3 
90.9 
96.0 
94.8 
99-5 
94.8 
21. r 
13-5 
91.4 


While  the  condition  of  the  metal  industry  as  a  whole  is  not  yet  satis- 
lactory,  it  has  certainly  made  wonderful  progress  in  the  last  few  5'ears 
and  the  next  few  years  will,  no  doubt,  place  Russia  among  our  strongest 
competitors. 

The  development  of  the  manufacture  of  machines  and  implements  in 
Russia  has  been  sacrificed  in  order  to  encourage  other  indu.stries.  Ulien- 
ever  it  has  been  essential  to  the  rapid  development  of  any  particular  trade 
that  tools  should  be  imported  free  of  duty  they  have  laeen  placed  on  the  free 
list;  con.sequently  the  growth  of  this  branch  of  manufacture  has  been  .slow. 

1  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  I.,  p.  175. 


The  iiulustr}-  has,  however,  already  reached  large  proportions,  the 
amount  in  1890  exceeding  $25,000,000.  The  tariff  of  iSgi  will  tend  to 
have  a  greater  effect  upon  the  manufacture  of  machiner)-  and  tools  than 
upon  anj'  other  article.  The  industry  is  now  fully  protected,  and  as  it  has 
become  an  especial  solicitude  on  the  part  of  the  government,  this  progress 
will  be  watched  and  encouraged  in  every  way  possible,  which  means  that 
it  will  be  fully  developed  at  the  earliest  possible  time. 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  at  the  time  when  Bohemia  was 
making  glass  goods  of  such  excellent  and  beautiful  quality  for  all  Europe, 
the  first  glass  works  were  established  in  Russia.  Peter  the  Great,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  founded  the  Imperial  Glass  Works, 
and  different  sovereigns  since  have  given  especial  aid  to  the  development 
of  the  industry.  A  distinguished  writer,  who  has  made  a  special  study 
of  the  different  trade  interests  of  Russia,  says  : 

The  second  half  of  the  last  centurj-  was  signalized  by  the  development  of  the 
glass  industry  and  by  the  production  of  the  highest  grades  of  wares,  such  as  crystal, 
Venetian  glass,  iiligree  and  glass  tissue.  The  principal  motive  for  the  introduction 
was  a  most  sincere  and  earnest  desire  to  develop  the  home  trade  and  to  raise  its 
standard  by  joining  to  it  new  and  related  branches  of  independent  industries. 
With  this  desire  many  promoters  of  the  time  were  thoroughly  imbued.  Amongst 
them  were  some  who  were  possessed  of  an  inborn  genius  and  love  of  technique; 
being  also  endowed  with  great  energy  they  became  powerful  movers  in  the  trade 
development  of  the  Empire. 

The  principal  characteri.stic  of  these  promoters  was,  amongst  other  things,  the 
capacity  of  influencing  others  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  development  and  in  the 
fruits  of  the  new  industry  as  directed  b)'  their  own  labors.  Their  thirst  for  activity 
extended  much  farther  than  to  the  satisfying  of  their  own  personal  interests;  they 
invited  co-operation  by  publishing  articles  on  the  profitable  character  of  the  glass 
trade,  by  describing  their  own  factories  to  all  comers,  and  thus  exerted  a  great  influ- 
ence upon  the  industry.  In  a  word,  these  men  were  exemplary  promoters,  who  have 
left  as  a  noble  inheritance  their  worthy  examples  to  inspire  contemporary  and  future 
generations. 

In  Siberia  glass  works  were  founded  very  early.  In  1850  there  were 
in  all  200  glass  and  cry.stal  works  in  Rus.sia,  their  output  amounting  to 
about  3,000,000  roubles.  In  1890  the  production  had  increased  to  11,479,- 
000  roubles. 

The  value  of  the  production  of  pottery  and  earthenware  in  1890 
amounted  to  only  4,404,000  roubles,  yet  this  industry  was  among  the  first 
to  be  established  in  Russia.  It  is  only  of  late  that  the  more  perfect 
development  of  the  manufacture  of  articles  for  households  has  taken 
place.  Till  recently  most  of  such  articles  were  imported,  and  the 
development  of  native  industry  has  been  confined  to  articles  of  neces- 
sary use  or  for  household  utensils.  In  fact,  it  has  been  the  needs  of  the 
men  composing  the  Russian  army  in  different  ages,  that  have  led  to  the 
establishment  and  growth  of  many  of  Russia's  greatest  industries.  To 
this  can  be  traced  the  introduction  and  progress  of  cotton,  woolen,  linen. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


manufactures  of  leather  goods,  as  well  as  side-arms  and  other  imple- 
ments of  warfare. 

So  long  as  the  people  of  Russia  were  exclusively  devoted  to  agriculture, 
no  real  chemical  manufactures  existed  in  the  Empire.  The  industn,-, 
therefore,  has  been  but  recently  established  and  has  not  yet  reached  any 
considerable  value.  The  raising  of  customs  duties  produced  a  considerable 
mprovement  not  only  in  the  manufacture  of  chemicals  but  in  many  of 
the  important  raw  materials  necessary  for  that  iudustr>\  This  fact  was 
taken  into  consideration  in  revising  the  custom  laws  in  1891.  Duties 
were  thoroughly  systematized  and  in  many  cases  raised.  The  effect  has 
already  shown  itself  in  the  production  of  .soda,  bleaching  powders,  and 
many  other  substances.  The  chemical  industry  of  Russia,  however,  must 
be  considered  as  only  in  the  first  stages  of  its  growth.  The  productioij  of 
chemical  and  dye  goods  does  not  begin  to  satisfy  the  great  demand, 
although  the  development  since  1891  has  been  rapid.  As  with  the  help 
of  protective  duties  the  industry'  gains  strength,  not  only  will  the  produc- 
tion be  equal  to  the  home  demand,  but  a  large  export  trade  can  safely  be 
expected. 

Most  Russian  towns,  mills  and  houses  are  lighted  by  kerosene  lamps, 
though  the  use  of  gas  and  electric  lights  is  on  the  increase.  The  cheap- 
ness of  kerosene  and  the  many  advantages  of  electricity,  the  latter  being 
considerably  used  in  the  mines,  have  checked  to  a  considerable  extent 
the  manufacture  of  illuminating  gas  in  Russia.  The  number  of  matches 
made  in  Russia  was  144,747,325,000,  in  1891,  amounting  in  value  to  about 
5,000,000  roubles.  In  no  industry  of  Russia  can  we  find  such  rapid  pro- 
gress and  advancement,  as  is  seen  in  the  establishment  and  develop- 
ment of  naphtha.  This  is  undoubtedlj^  due  primarily  to  the  fact  that 
natural  as  well  as  governmental  laws  contribute  to  its  production.  The 
statistics  of  the  production  of  naphtha  are  at  best  unsatisfactory.  For  the 
years  previous  to  1S75  no  reliable  statistics  are  to  be  obtained.  Since  that 
time,  however,  data  have  been  collected  by  representatives  of  mining  and 
excise  officers  and  are  considered  very  reliable.  In  1876  the  production 
was  1,000,000  barrels.  In  1890  the  production  was  25,000,000  barrels. 
From  1890  to  1891  a  total  of  about  150,000,000  barrels  was  attained  and 
the  production  has  increased  yearly  with  great  rapidity. 

The  quality  of  Russian  Portland  cement  is  considered  equal  to  that 
of  the  best  English  and  German  cements.  The  production  in  1890  as  given 
at  the  meeting  of  the  cement  manufacturers  in  St.  Petersburg  in  1892,  was 
920,000  casks  of  about  396  pounds  each.  The  total  annual  consumption 
of  cements  in  Russia  amounts  to  504,000,000  pounds  of  home  manufacture, 
and  about  54,000,000  of  imported.  The  prices  of  Russian  cements  are 
considerably  less  than  foreign  prices  plus  duty,  showing  that  the  protec- 
tive system  of  Russia  by  increasing  home  competition,  lowers  the  prices, 
benefiting  the  consumer,  at  the  same  time  giving  employment  to  native 


workmen,  and  keeping  money  at  home  which  would  otherwise  be  sent  to 
foreign  countries. 

The  efScacy  of  protection  to  an  industry  whether  by  import  duties, 
bounties  or  other  governmental  aid,  is  nowhere  so  apparent  as  in  the 
development  and  success  of  the  beet  sugar  industries  in  the  countries  of  the 
European  continent.  The  industry  was  begun  in  Russia  simultaneously 
with  other  countries  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  receiv- 
ing government  aid  from  the  start.  It  was  not  till  1834  that  the  tech- 
nical part  was  thoroughly  mastered  and  the  advantages  thus  derived 
resulted  in  such  improvement  as  very  considerably  to  increase  the  output. 
The  tariff  was  greatly  strengthened  in  1841  when  the  importation  of 
colonial  raw  sugar  by  land  was  prohibited.  In  1855,  395  manufactories 
had  been  estabUshed.  From  this  time  on  the  industry  advanced  rapidly. 
Capital  was  attracted,  stock  associations  were  formed,  and  an  improve- 
ment was  shown  in  both  beet  plantations  and  manufactories.  Sugar  of 
home  production  not  only  checked  all  importation,  but  soon  formed  an 
article  of  export.  The  government  continued  to  encourage  the  industry. 
An  excise  tax  was  early  established  and  the  revenue  obtained  was 
considerable.  The  industry  enjoyed  complete  protection.  Frequent 
investigations  were  made  by  the  government  and  the  statutes  were 
constantly  revised  to  meet  changed  conditions.  The  industry  is  now 
among  the  most  prominent  of  Russia.  In  1891  the  production  exceeded 
1,000,000,000  pounds  using  over  10,000,000,000  pounds  of  beets.  The 
export  of  raw  .sugar  in  1891  amounted  to  220,000,000  pounds  and  of  re- 
fined sugar  to  45,000,000  pounds.  The  total  importations  in  1891  of  all 
raw  and  refined,  including  candy,  were  only  138  tons.  The  total  produc- 
tion of  refined  sugar  in  1892  was  648,000,000  pounds.  The  growth  of  this 
industry  in  Russia,  Germany  and  France  aifords  an  example  of  the  worth 
of  governmental  aid  that  could  well  be  emulated  by  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  reason  wh3-  we  should  not  produce  all  the  sugar  consuined  by 
our  people.  The  bounty  aid  established  in  1890  by  the  McKinley  bill 
gave  a  sudden  impetus  to  the  growing  of  beets  and  the  making  of  raw 
sugar,  but  with  the  repeal  of  this  law,  by  the  free  traders,  came  a  check 
to  the  growth  of  the  industry  and  we  must  continue  to  import  nine-tenths 
of  our  raw  sugar,  till  the  protectionist  can  again  come  to  the  aid  of  home 
producers. 

The  production  in  1890  of  the  most  important  branches  of  mining 
can  be  seen  from  the  following  table  : 


Gold, 
Silver,    . 
Platinum, 
Copper, 
Lead, 


Weight. 

Value. 

Pouds. 

Roubles,  Gold 

2,155 

30,402,900 

1,011 

923,400 

173 

692,000 

549-500 

2,796,000 

51,100 

51,000 

PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Weight.     Ponds.  Roubles.  Gold. 

Zinc 230,400  553.000 

Mercury, 17.^35  535.00O 

Tin, Soo  8,000 

Pig  irou, 56,560,000  22,624,000 

Coal,       . 367.203,500  12,852,200 

Salt, 84,857,200  3.394.300 

Naphtha, 242,941,600  3,717,700 

Manganese  ore, 11,139,700  389,900 

Sulphur 9.800  5.500' 

The  number  of  men  employed  is  about  half  a  million,  and  the  total 
value  of  the  annual  production  is  about  $62,000,000. 

To  attempt  a  comprehensive  examination  of  the  agricultural  life 
and  productions  of  Russia  would  be  impossible  in  the  time  and  space  at 
the  writer's  disposal.  Over  no  nationalities  spread  over  407,000  square 
miles,  with  varied  conditions  of  soil  and  climate,  are  engaged  in  an 
almost  innumerable  variety  of  pursuits.  Only  an  attempt  will  be  made, 
therefore,  to  summarize  the  condition  of  the  industr>'  as  a  whole,  giving 
the  reader  a  general  view  of  the  agricultural  industry  as  it  appears  at 
the  present  time.  Russia  is  by  no  means  a  land  of  snow  and  ice.  Every 
variety  of  climate  is  found  and  almost  ever>'  variety  of  soil.  Nowhere  does 
the  rural  population  predominate  .so  largely  over  the  urban.  Nearly,  if 
not  quite,  90  per  cent  of  the  people  are  engaged  in  rural  pursuits  and  about 
1,000,000,000  acres  of  land  are  under  more  or  less  cultivation.  Previous 
to  1 86 1  the  large  proportion  of  farm  workers  were  serfs  or  slaves.  But  by 
the  Emancipation  Act  of  February  19,  186 1,  all  serfs  were  set  free. 

The  ownership  of  lands  at  the  present  time  may  be  divided  as  follows: 

Acres. 

Peasant  lands, 354,666,222 

State 406,061,815 

Crown, 19,890.688 

Private, •   •  252,101,145 

Church,  monastery,  town, 23,165,508 

As  will  be  seen  the  State  is  the  largest  land-owner.  More  than  half 
the  rest  is  made  up  of  peasant  lots  owned  by  the  communes,  while  private 
individuals  own  less  than  one-fourth.  The  form  of  land  ownership  is, 
however,  a  satisfactory  one  and  gives  the  agriculturist  independence  and  a 
love  for  his  chosen  work.  Among  the  chief  industries  may  be  mentioned  : 
Forest  culture,  flax  growing,  beet  raising,  grain  cultivation,  including 
wheat,  oats,  millet,  barley,  rj'e  and  buckwheat.  To  the  raising  of  peas. 
potatoes,  tobacco  and  cattle  somewhat  less  attention  is  given.  Alternation 
or  rotation  of  crops  is  resorted  to  and  years  of  rest  are  sometimes  given 
to  certain  portions  of  the  land,  before  another  rotation  commences.  To- 
bacco, however,  is  cultivated  for  several  consecutive  years  on  the  same 

1  The  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  57. 


plantations  with  the  help  of  fertilizers,  then  giving  place  to  cereals.  Gar- 
dening, while  not  so  extensive  as  field  culture,  is  nevertheless  a  means  of 
livelihood  of  a  large  number  of  people.  Among  the  vegetables  grown 
are  cabbages,  cucumbers,  onions,  melons,  pumpkins,  tomatoes,  peas, 
beans,  asparagus,  chicorj^  and  bulbous  fruits.  The  greatest  development 
is  seen  in  the  country  about  St.  Petersburg  and  Moscow,  the  two  vast 
markets  for  garden  produce.  Fruit  trees  and  shrubs  grow  all  over  the 
country,  apples  and  cherries  predominating,  though  in  the  south  are  found 
pears,  plums,  grapes  and  peaches.  Nearly  all  kinds  of  berries  are  also 
found.  The  cultivation  of  the  grape  is  one  of  the  principal  branches  of 
the  south  and  the  varieties  are  so  numerous  that  it  is  impossible  to  name 
them  all.  The  wine  is  generally  a  mixture  of  juices  and  is  not  of  a  very 
high  quality. 

Abundance  of  pasture  lands  makes  stock-raising  ver>'  profitable. 
The  following  table  shows  the  present  number  of  animals  : 

Horses 25,935,000 

Cattle 32,884,000 

Sheep 63,902,000 

Swine, 11,464,000 

Camels, 429,000 

Goats 672,000 

Stags, 533.000  ' 

The  breeding  of  horses  is  very  considerable  though,  except  in  draft 
horses,  not  yet  equal  to  other  countries.  Sheep  raising  is  very  successful 
and  has  always  been  encouraged  by  Russian  sovereigns  since  Peter  the 
Great,  who  imported  the  fine  merino  sheep  from  Silesia.  In  European 
Russia  upward  of  250,000,000  pounds  of  unwashed  and  scoured  wool  is 
produced,  of  which  about  two-fifths  is  merino  wool.  Poultry,  bees,  silk 
worms,  dairy  products  and  many  otlier  employments  go  to  make  up  the 
total  of  agricultural  industries.  The  average  amount  paid  for  male  labor 
will  not  exceed  $50  per  year,  and  for  female  hire,  $30.  This  includes  food 
and  lodging. 

Farming  machines  and  implements,  while  not  used  to  the  extent 
practiced  in  the  United  States,  are  both  made  and  imported  in  consider- 
able quantities.  The  making  of  farm  implements  has  been  encouraged  by 
the  government  by  subsidies,  as  foreign  goods  have  been  admitted  free  to 
help  the  farmers  while  different  manufactures  were  developing.  Hand- 
work is  so  cheap,  however,  that  labor-saving  machines  are  not  so  univer- 
sally used  as  in  the  United  States.  Much  attention  is  paid  to  agricultural 
schools  which  are  well  attended  and  with  most  beneficial  results.  Farms  are 
connected  with  the  schools  giving  the  students  practical  as  well  as  theoreti- 
cal knowledge.  The  so-called  household  industry  of  Russia  comes 
properly   under  agriculture.     The   farmer   devotes   all  his   leisure  to  it, 

'  The  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  in.,  p.  205. 


PROTECriON  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COCNTKIES 

while  the  women  and  children  are  always  at  work.  Among  the  articles 
made  are  the  following  :  wheels,  carts  and  sledges,  barrels,  tubs,  pails, 
furniture,  boxes  and  the  like,  plaited  articles,  baskets,  mats,  shoes,  etc. 
Spoons  are  made  in  large  quantities.  Then  there  are  leather  goods  and 
nets.  '  Weaving  and  spinning  is  carried  on  by  nearlj-  everj'  household. 
The  working  of  precious  stones,  the  making  of  jewelry  and  the  manufac- 
ture of  lace,  adds  much  to  the  income  of  manj-  peasants. 

Fishery  is  a  very  important  Russian  industrj-.  There  are  a  half 
million  regular  fishermen,  and  several  million  peasants  follow  the  occu- 
pation when  not  otherwise  employed.  The  annual  product  amounts  to 
nearly  2,500,000,000  pounds.  In  curing  alone,  360,000,000  pounds  of 
salt  is  used. 

As  has  been  the  case  in  Russian  manufactures,  so  in  agriculture  can 
its  great  progress  and  present  importance  be  traced  to  government  aid 
and  encouragement.  By  legislation  of  various  forms,  by  protection,  by 
schools,  by  the  propagation  of  instructive  literature,  by  exhibitions  and 
numberless  other  means,  have  the  farming  interests  of  Russia  been 
advanced  and  maintained.  The  best  seeds  and  stock  have  been  brought 
from  abroad  and  cultivated,  so  that  to-day  Russia  stands  among  the  fore- 
most of  agricultural  countries  with  limitless  resources  and  capabilities. 

The  total  foreign  trade  of  Russia  in  1890  amounted  to  $496,850,000, 
exports  forming  64.7  per  cent,  and  the  imports  35.3  per.  cent,  respec- 
tively, of  the  whole.  In  1891  the  exports  still  further  exceeded  the 
imports.  To  show  of  what  the  foreign  trade  of  Russia  consists,  the  follow- 
ing table  of  imports  and  exports  is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  United 
States  Consul  J.  M.  Crawford  : ' 

Tahle  Showing  the  Value  of  Imports  into  Russia  in  1890  and  1891. 

1890.  1891. 

Cereals, |26i,50o  ^190,000 

Rice,      189,000  226,500 

Flour, 195,000  126,000 

Vegetable-s 196,500  95. 500 

Oranges  and  lemons 1,288,500  1,200,500 

Fruit 502,500  547.500 

Capers  and  olive,s, 148,500  152,000 

Nuts  and  almonds 405.500  349.500 

Cloves,  cinnamon   aud  pepper 784,000  654,000 

Coflfee,      2,694,500  2,563,500 

Cocoa,      . 246,500  232,000 

Tea 14,591,500  13,866,000 

Tobacco,      1,532,000  726,000 

Cigars 258,000  230,000 

Hops, 473.500  419.500 

Spirits, 660,500  741.500 

Wine 3,551,000  3,498,500 

Mineral  waters, 259,500  264,000 

Salt, 130,500  106,000 

Cheese, 305.000  383.000 

Butler,      .    .        632,500  346.000 

1  No.  143.  p.  738. 


Fish 1341,000  I  365.500 

Caviar 374,ooo  387,000 

Salted  Fish 84,500  66,000 

Herrings 3,613,500  2,942,000 

Animals,       466,000  434,500 

Manuring  substances, 686,000  461,000 

Lard 315.500  403,500 

Spermaceti,   etc., •    .    .   .    .  •    .    .  283,500  280,500 

Paraffin,  wax,  etc 661,000  628,500 

Skins,       2,268,000  2,028,500 

Leather,       3.575. 500  2,619,000 

Leather  goods, 281,000  430,500 

Wood 2,445,000  2,155,500 

Cork  tree, 722,000  758,500 

Wooden  goods, 152,500  243,500 

Furniture 565,500  549,000 

Plants  and  seeds 2,094,000  2,163,500 

Clay,  chalk,  talc,  etc 386,500  379.500 

Plaster,  lime,  etc., 150,500  103,500 

Cement,        .    .        360,000  256,500 

Precious  stones,        754,000  568,000 

Fire  bricks  and  clay, 1360,500  $402,000 

Pottery,           268,500  257,500 

Earthenware 353,000  379.500 

Glassware,       914,000  807,000 

Coal  and  turf •    • 5,360,000  5,167,000 

Coke,        ...            755.000  727.500 

Tar,  anthracene,  etc., 183,500  155,000 

White  resin, 761,500  836,500 

Caoutchouc  (rubber) 1,923,500  1,631,000 

Chemical  goods 5.973.5oo  5,598,000 

Vegetable  oils 2,868,500  3,421,000 

Ethereal  oils,      168,500  161,500 

Cosmetics, 309,500  311,000 

Tannin, 304,500  348,000 

Dyestuffs 6,906,500  6,218,500 

Metallic  ores,     .    .    .    ■ 15,558,500  13,378,000 

Gold  articles,      107,000  194,500 

Silver  articles 232,500  176,500 

Metallic  goods, 6,533,500  6,271,000 

Engines  and  models 9,700,500  10,014,500 

Mathematical,  physical,  and  other  instruments,     .    .  671,000  780,500 

Clocks  and  watches,     ....        1,676,500  1,291,500 

Musical  instruments,      487,500  479,500 

Vessels, 1,813,000  •2,086,500 

Rags 123,500  104,500 

Wood  pulp, '. 646.000  634,500 

Paper, i.533.5oo  1,540,500 

Books  and  pictures, 886,500  960,000 

Cotton, 33,857,000  29,629,500 

Jute 603,000  8.S6,500 

Flax  and  hemp 63.500  55, 000 

Floss  silk, 808,000  1,218,500 

Wool, 2,075,000  1,966,000 

Yarn  : 

Cotton 4,203,500  2,418,000 

Jute,      169.0CO  138,500 

Silk,      3,143,500  3,026,000 

Wool,  spinned 7,590,500  5.545.ooo 

Cotton  tissue, 1,149,000  1,215,000 

Flax  and  hemp  goods, 696,500  613,500 

Handkerchiefs  and  ribbons 719,500  602,500 

Woolen  goods,      2,009,500  2,082,500 

Wearing  apparel 306,000  300,500 

Toys 653,500  607,500 

31 


PROTECTIOX  IN  COXTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Table  Showing  the  Value  of  Exports  from  Russia  in  1890  and  1S91. 


Cereals  and  other  breadstuffs $159,981,000 

Potatoes,         230,000 

Vegetables, 211,000 

Anise 302,000 

Fruit,       386,000 

Meat : 

Fresh 176,000 

Pork 986,000 

Salted 138,000 

Pork 283,500 

Cheese 178,5°° 

Butter, 1,618,500 

Margarine,      239,000 

Eggs 6,147,000 

Treacle, 29,500 

Sweets 179.500 

Caviar,      1,163,000 

Fish  : 

Fresh 298,000 

Salted, 7*^6.500 

Sugar : 

Soft,      1,960,500 

Refined, 288,500 

Tobacco,      808,000 

Cigars,      151,000 

Spirits 2,615,000 

Liquors, 96,500 

Wine  : 

In  barrels, 5°.ooo 

In  bottles, 27,000 

Crude  and  half-mauufactured  articles  : 

Timber, 26,287,000  , 

Seeds, 20,525,000 

Linseed  cakes, 1,149,500 

Flax  cakes, ■    .    .  219,000 

Sunflower  cakes,  .    .    ■ 643,000 

Other  cakes, • 665,090 

Licorice, 137. 00° 

Flax,                25,191,000 

Tow, •    • 1,834,000 

Hemp,      7,663,000 

Tow 663,500 

Furs 2,273,500 

Skins •    •    .    .  2,944,000 

Bones, ■    •    .    .    .  1,003,000 

Manuring  substances,      202,500 

Horsehair,       594. 5°° 

Bristles,    .    .    .    .    ■ 4,230,500 

Down, • 97.000 

Feathers 741,000 

Yarn  : 

Flax 41.500 

Hemp, 288,000 

Rags 214,000 

Lard 534.5°° 

Cocoons 147,000 

Silk  combings, 399  000 

Silk 262,000 

Wool 7,116,500 

Stone, 104, o(K) 

Tar 275,000 

Manganese, 1,521,500 


1175,887,000 
366,000 
103,500 
204,000 
122,500 

247,500 
252,500 
248,000 
94,000 
189,500 

2,093,000 
156,500 

6,326,000 
82,500 
156,000 

1,096,000 


9,351,000 
322,000 
537.500 
186,000 

2,357,000 
135.500 

21,500 
46.500 

20,969,500 

15,807,000 

1,366,000 

170,500 

770,000 

794.500 

253,000 

20,666,000 

1,866,000 

7,793.500 

614,500 

2,695,000 

3,918,500 

813,000 

104,500 

923.500 

3,619,000 

87,500 

Soi,ooo 

23.500 
211,000 
211,500 
448,500 
107,000 
1 75  o  o 
100.500 
7.077,500 

77  000 
204,000 
835,000 


Articles.  iSgo.  1S91. 

Metals,         |i,  1 12,000  ;JS64,ooo 

Naphtha,      54,500  77.500 

Oils: 

For  lighting,      9,540,000  10,710,000 

Naphtha, 2,301,500  2,297,500 

Vegetable iiS.ooo  114  000 

Turpentine, 377,000  389,500 

DyestufFs, 93.50°  99.500 

Potassium 65,500  87.500 

Drugs, 682,500  599,000 

Isinglass, 394-500  421,500 

Birds 1,728,000  1,852,500 

Poultry  and  game, 376,500  299,500 

Cattle, 468,500  440,500 

Pigs, 20  500  1,486,000 

Sheep, 282,000  655,000 

Horses,         1,991,000  2,542,000 

Bricks, 26,500  38,000 

Earthenware 68,500  79, 500 

Glass  and  china, 64,000  141.500 

Metal  goods, 712,500  1,213,500 

Furniture 185,500  171,500 

Wooden  goods, 191,000  52,000 

India-rubber  goods 569,000  691,000 

Mats  (Russian), 77,ooo  87,000 

Leather  goods, 424,500  432.000 

Flax  and  hemp  goods, 1,046,500  1,053,000 

Silk  stuffs 107,000  67,000 

Woolen  stuffs, 985,000  733. 500 

Cotton  tissue, 1,589,500  1,200,000 

Wearing  apparel, 1,352,000  1,747,000 

Cosmetics 131,000  115,500 

Millinery, 233,500  217,000 

Mattresses, 238,000  546,000 

Candles, 171,000  109,500 

An  examination  of  Russia's  industrial  growth  as  industry  after  industry 
has  been  developed,  will  show  first  a  gradual  decline  in  the  importation 
of  all  raw  materials  capable  of  being  produced  at  home,  then  a  decline  in 
the  importation  of  manufactured  articles  as  home  production  began  to 
supply  the  demand,  then  an  increase  of  exports  of  such  materials,  both 
raw  and  finished,  as  were  produced  in  excess  of  home  demand.  This 
shows  a  natural  healthy  growth.  There  is  no  spasmodic  movement  but  a 
steady  progress  in  every  thing  possible '  for  the  Russian  to  grow  or  manu- 
facture. 

In  1890,  10,806  vessels  with  6,975,000  tonnage  went  to  Russian  ports, 
while  10,640  vessels  with  6,941,000  tonnage  departed,  12  per  cent  of 
which  were  Russian,  36  per  cent  British  (55  per  cent  of  the  measure- 
ment), 16  per  cent  German,  14  per  cent  Swedish  and  Norwegian,  10  per 
cent  Danish,  7  per  cent  Greek  and  7  per  cent  Turkish. 

To  get  at  the  true  value  of  the  internal  trade  of  any  country  is  impos- 
sible; and  in  Russia  it  is  particularly  difficult,  owing  to  the  vast  territory, 
the  long  distances  and  the  variety  of  conditions  under  which  the  inland 
trade  is  carried  on.  The  only  figures  available,  and  only  approximate  at 
that,  are  the  following  : 


t> 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Product  of  manufacturing  and  mining  industries,  .  1,656,000,000  routiles. 

Breadstuffs, 1,400,000,000         " 

Foreign  imports, 416,000,000         " 

Turnover  for  the  transport  of  goods  and  passengers,      523,000,000         " 

Total, 3,995,000,000  roubles. 

When  the  commercial  undertakings  and  their  turnovers  are  reckoned,  the  results 
will  prove  as  follows: 


uudertakings. 
Personal  Guild  and  Non-Guild  enterprises,         383,000 
Joint  stock  companies,  and  those  based  on 

mutual   responsibility, 740 


Roubles 
7,344.000,0c 


I4.055,' 


The  commercial  companies,  with  regard  to  their  number  and  especially  to  their 
turnovers,  are  very  unequally  distributed  among  separate  governments.  Those  of  St. 
Petersburg  and  Mcscow,  as  well  as  those  in  which  manufacturing  is  more  developed, 
have  the  precedence,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  accompanying  table  comprising  the 
most  active  governments  in  respect  to  trade: 

Number  of  Companies 
Governments  (share  guilds  and  Annual  business 

non-guilds).  in  roubles. 

St.  Petersburg, 18,857  4,647,000,000 

Moscow, 19,086  2,969,000,000 

Kherson 10,918  1,447,000,000 

Lithuania 6.693  545, 000,000 

Warsaw, 9.912  542,000,000 

Kharkov 7,325  408,000,000 

Kiev, '  .    .    .    .     11,897  406,000,000 

The  distribution  of  the  firms  and  their  turnovers  shows  no  less  variety  with  regard 
to  the  different  branches  of  trade  to  which  they  belong.  The  more  prominent  of  these 
branches,  according  to  the  number  of  the  firms  and  the  amount  of  their  business,  are 
the  following; 


Business  Firms.  guild  and  uo 

guild). 

Loan,  banking  and  commission  establish- 
ments,   .    .  ....  3.38S 

Trade  in  manufactured  goods 37.450 

Trade  in  grain  and  flour, i6,6Si 

Hotels,     restaurants,     buffets,     drinking 
halls,  inns 

Transport  agencies,  railways  excluded,  . 

Wine  .stores,  wine  cellars 

Trade  in  metallic  wares  and  machinery,  . 

Lumber  trade 

Trade   in    read>-made   clothes,  hats  and 

fur  articles, 5.662 


10,165,000,000 
637,000,000 
481,000,000 


103,080 

263,000,000 

2.259 

239,000,000 

19.245 

211,000,000 

7,585 

144,000,001.) 

5.839 

108,000,000 

Peculiar  to  Russia  are  her  great  fairs.     It  is,  of  counse,  impossible  to 
give  their  exact   number  or  the  amount  of  business  transacted.     Perhaps 

1 1'lie  Industries  of  Russia,  Vol.  11.,  p.  479. 


RUSSIA. 


there  are  nearly  3000  fairs  with  200,000  tradesmen  doing  about  $700,000,- 
000  worth  of  business  annually.  The  ancient  establishment  of  these  fairs 
was  due  to  the  lack  of  transportation  facilities.  Peasants  and  middlemen 
gathered,  therefore,  at-  convenient  centres,  and  a  general  exchange  of 
goods  ensued.  The  government  has  always  encouraged  and  protected 
these  great  trade  gatherings,  and  they  have  no  doubt  been  of  great 
advantage  and  served  in  many  ways  to  promote  the  commercial  life  of 
Russia.  A  falHng  off  has  been  noted  in  recent  years,  however,  as  railways 
have  been  built  and  extended,  though  it  is  not  probable  that  even  per- 
fected and  rapid  means  of  transportation  will  cause  their  entire  cessation. 

The  trade  and  commerce  of  the  Empire  as  a  whole  has  been  considered. 
It  now  remains  to  examine  briefly  the  condition  of  the  people.  As  has 
been  seen,  the  great  proportion  of  Russian  laborers  are  agriculturists, 
though  as  manufacturing  is  extended  workers  are  drawn  from  the  farms. 
It  has  been  noted  that  many  of  the  land-owners  and  workmen  on  farms 
give  more  or  less  attention  to  home  manufacturing.  Wages  are  small, 
and  because  of  the  changes  in  price  of  labor,  it  is  difficult  to  give  any 
e.Kact  data.  The  highest  wages,  however,  are  those  paid  in  steel  and 
machine  factories,  where  the  workmen  get  on  an  average  about  $390  per 
year.  The  smallest  wages  are  found  in  the  cotton  mills,  where  the  aver- 
age wage  ranges  from  $80  to  $150  a  year.  Women's  wages  are  about 
one-half  those  given  to  men,  and  children's  one-third.  The  wants  of  the 
Russian  are  few.  He  spends  very  little  even  of  the  small  amount  he 
earns.  His  food  is  simple,  his  apparel  coarse  and  plain,  and  his  hut, 
barrack  or  lodging  place,  while  ample  and  comfortable,  is  exceedingly 
primitive  in  character.  The  number  of  working  hours  can  be  seen  from 
the  following  : 

Factories  having  over  12  hours  a  day,  20  per  cent;  12  hours,  36.8 
per  cent;  11  hours,  20.8  per  cent;  9  hours,  21  per  cent;  8  hours,  1.6  per 
cent;   7  hours,  0.4  per  cent,  and  6  hours,  0.2  per  cent. 

The  following  table  is  compiled  from  tables  of  wages  given  in  ' '  The 
Industries  of  Russia  :  ' ' 

Average 

Industry.  wages. 

Roubles. 

Cotton  manufacture, 157-83 

Cotton-weaving  industry, 174-98 

Cotton-spinning  and  weaving  industries, 152. S8 

The  manufacture  of  chintz  and  kerchiefs,  and  the  dyeing  of  cotton  tissues,    .    .  180.00 

Tape,  galoou,  lace  and  trimming  manufactures, 171.06 

Wool-spinning  and  wool -combing  manufactures 190.56 

Spinning  of  carded  wool  (worsted) I56-7I 

Mechanical  and  hand-weaving  of  wool, 2I4-7I 

Spinning  and  weaving  of  wool  and  the  finishing  department, 197.02 

Cloth  manufactory 124-47 

Cloth-trimming  manufactory, I34-07 


PROTEcrioy  IX  cuxtinental  and  other  countries. 


yearly 

Roubles- 

Wool-weaving,  printing  and  dyeing  manufactories, 169  00 

Hat  manufactory, 206.00 

Silk-weaving  manufactory, 207.10 

Silk  lace  manufactory, 436.0S 

Velvet  manufactory, 211. 10 

Spinning  and  combing  of  flax, 116.35 

Spinning  and  weaving  of  flax 124.31 

Spinning  and  weaving  of  flax,  and  the  bleaching  of  linen 12S.46 

Flax-weaving  manufactory, I45-00 

Linen-bleaching  manufactory, 185.36 

Production  of  articles  in  jute, 166.89 

Production  of  gutta  percha  articles, 260.71 

Paper  manufacture, i75-o6 

Tapestry  manufacture,' 209.37 

Sawmills 237.17 

Production  of  bent  wood  furniture, 176.06 

Cast-iron  and  mechanic  foundries, 321-74 

Steel  foundry, 524-28 

Coustruction  of  machines  and  cars, 300.84 

Machine  and  ship  construction,  and  irou-roUing  mills, 337-91 

Construction  of  telegraphs— The  making  of  electro-technical  apparatus,  .    .    .  517.14 

Production  of  wire  and  horseshoe  nails, 325-3^ 

Production  of  screws  aud  other  metallic  articles, 2S7.06 

Production  of  artistic  bronze  and  copper  articles, 3221'-. 

Plated  goods  manufacture,  ..." 346-' 

Chemical  industry, .• 282 . 1 .  ■ 

Match  industry, 121.26 

Glass  manufacture 244.07 

Cement  manufacture, 189.24 

Earthenware  manufacture, 191.06 

Brick  manufacture, 164.09 

Flour  manufacture, 3°5-o6 

Beer  and  mead  breweries, 211.03 

Beet  sugar  production  and  sugar  refineries, i59-6o 

Tobacco  factories, i47-io 

Leather  manufacture,  328.57 

Machine  production  of  boots  and  shoes 292.28 

Soap  manufacture, 218.00 

Typographic  industry, ■     ....  30S.42 

It  is  estimated  that  the  peasant  workers  earn  from  75,000,000  to  100,- 
000,000  roubles  yearly.  This  is  mostly  gained  outside  of  farm  work  in 
the  numerous  .small  industries  before  alluded  to.  This,  however,  repre- 
sents but  a  small  part  of  the  value  of  their  work,  as  the  middlemen  make 
100  to  1000  per  cent  profit  on  their  wares.  Considering  the  charac- 
ter of  the  people  and  past  facilities  for  transacting  business,  it  must  be 
conceded  that  the  progress  made  in  recent  years  is  most  remarkable. 
With  the  further  development  of  railroads  and  other  means  of  frequent 


RUSSIA. 


and  rapid  transportation,  the  trade  and  commerce  of  Russia  will,  no  doubt 
show  wonderful  results.  With  a  governmental  polic}'  fully  committed 
to  a  thoroughly  protective  tariff,  with  a  growing  ambition  not  only  to 
supph'  their  own  wants  with  everything  that  can  be  produced,  but  to 
reach  out  for  other  markets,  the  industrial  attainments  of  Russia  are  bound 
to  become  enormous.  Their  abundant  natural  resources,  their  low  wa 
and  frugal,  easily  satisfied  host  of  laborers,  will  enable  them  to  become 
foremost  competitors  as  producers,  while  their  ability  to  supply  the  home 
market  will  eliminate  them, as  a  foreign  market  of  any  importance.  From 
a  Russian  standpoint  then  the  wisdom  of  a  protective  tariff  has  been  and 
is  being  fully  vindicated  and  proved  beyond  question  ;  when  it  is  consid- 
ered that  in  1894  the  production  of  the  four  cereals,  wheat,  rj^e,  oats  and 
barley  exceeded  1,915,640,000  bushels;  when  it  is  considered  that  she 
is  supplying  25  per  cent  of  the  cotton  worked  up  in  the  country  ( in  18S7 
only  906,000  pouds  of  Ru.ssian  cotton  was  used,  while  in  1892  the  pro- 
duction reached  3,800,000  pouds);  when  it  is  considered  that  Russia  has 
6,000,000  cotton  spindles  and  occupies  the  second  place  on  the  Continent 
in  the  cotton  industry  ;  that  the  sugar  industry-  has  doubled  in  a  dozen 
years;  that  the  manufacture  of  iron  has  increased  68  per  cent  in  the  last 
dozen  years;  that  the  production  of  steel  has  increased  59  per  cent  in  the 
same  time,  that  the  production  of  cast  iron  has  increased  160  per  cent  for 
that  period;  that  the  production  of  coal  has  advanced  129  per  cent  in 
twelve  years;  that  the  naphtha  production  has  increased  from  21,400,000 
pouds  in  1880  to  337,000,000  pouds  in  1893,  and  that  a  similar  increase 
has  taken  place  in  countless  other  productions;  when  the  extension  of 
railroads  is  considered,  we  may  well  ask,  as  may  England  and  Germany, 
what  the  result  will  be  in  the  near  future.  With  her  declining  imports 
and  increasing  exports  Russia  must  no  longer  be  considered  one  of  those 
neutral  markets  so  much  sought  after  by  the  American  free-trader.  She 
must  be  regarded  as  a  most  important  competitor,  as  a  rival  of  the  first 
rank. 


CHAPTER    III. 
France. 

The  Revolution,  however,  now  coming,  the  people  did  for  themselves  what 
their  masters  had  refused  to  do ;  re-establishing  the  system  of  Colbert,  the  greatest 
statesman  the  world  yet  has  seen,  and  making  protection  the  law  of  the  land. 
Since  then,  consuls  and  kings,  emperors  and  presidents  have  flitted  across  the 
stage ;  constitutions  almost  by  the  dozen  have  been  adopted ;  the  country  has  been 
thrice  occupied  by  foreign  armies,  and  thrice  has  it  been  compelled  to  pay  the  cost 
of  invasion  and  occupation ;  but  throughout  all  these  changes  it  has  held  to  protec- 
tion as  the  sheet  anchor  of  the  ship  of  state.  With  what  result?  With  that  of 
placing  France  in  the  lead  of  the  world  in  reference  to  all  that  is  beautiful  in 
industrial  and  pictorial  art.  With  that  of  making  her  more  independent,  commer- 
cially, than  any  other  country  of  the  world.  — Henry  C.  Carey. 

There  is  something  in  the  commercial  prosperity  of  France  which  by-and-by 
may  convert  .skeptics  to  Victor  Hugo's  poetic  doctrine  that  .she  is  the  "mother  of 
nations"  and  the  "crown  of  the  universe.  "  It  was  a  cruel  taunt  to  throw  at  the 
victor  of  Sedan,  that  the  milliards  of  her  war  indemnity  had  made  her  no  richer, 
while  France  had  paid  them  and  felt  herself  no  poorer.  [This  was  a  free  trade 
period  in  Germany.  ]  In  a  retrospect  of  the  four  years  which  have  elapsed  since  the 
treaty  of  Frankfort,  Germany  appears  as  the  commercial  victim  of  the  war.  Her 
internal  trade  has  been  paralyzed,  her  industry  has  stagnated  under  the  influence 
of  enormously  increased  prices,  and  the  poverty  of  her  laboring  classes  has  been 
intensified  by  higher  cost  of  living.  The  milliards  were  appropriated  to  military 
purposes,  and  had  no  opportunity  of  assisting  the  country  to  recoup  its  own  war 
losses. 

France  during  the  .same  period  has  been  prosperous  bej'ond  comparison  with 
her  plodding,  hard-fisted  rivals.  She  is  the  one  country  in  Europe  that  suffers  no 
commercial  reaction.  She  wears  a  charmed  life  among  the  perils  and  vicissitudes 
of  foreign  trade.  Where  all  else  retrogrades  or  remains  stationar)',  she  progresses. 
— British  Trade  Journal ,  July  i,  iSys,  pp.  6gi-6g2. 

Taken  altogether  it  [Colbert's  System]  composes  the  finest  politico-economic 
edifice  ever  created  by  any  government.  Alone  among  the  ruins  of  the  past  it  has 
remained  standing,  and  towers  now  at  its  greate.st  height  notwithstanding  the  shock 
of  revolutions.  He  [Colbert]  opened  the  way  for  the  national  labor  in  a  manner  at 
once  wise  and  regular,  and  to  his  measures  is  due  the  fact  that  France  ceased  to  be 
exclusively  agricultural,  and  became  enriched  by  the  new  value  given  to  her  land 
and  to  the  labors  of  her  people. —AVit//?///,  Histoire  de  I' Ecoiiomie  Poliliqnc.  I'ol. 
II,  p.  6. 

The  growth  of  industries  in  France  under  protection  may  be  said  to 
have  begun  with  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars.  Previous  to  that  date 
their  development  was  beset  with  many  difficulties  which  retarded  their 
growth  and  prevented  the  expansion  of  their  trade.  During  short  inter- 
vals of  peace  scarceh-  had  niaterial  prosperity  set  in  before  it  received 
a  check  and  progress  was  again  arrested. 


FRANCE. 


A  brief  historical  outline  of  some  of  those  political,  civil  and  religious 
events  which  distracted  and  impoverished  the  countr}-  up  to  so  recent  a 
date,  will  serve  to  explain  the  slow  progress  which  was  made  during  so 
many  centuries.  Prior  to  the  sixteenth  centurj'  the  country  affords  noth- 
ing of  interest  to  aid  in  forming  conclusions  with  regard  to  those  economic 
questions  which  have  been  under  discussion  during  the  present  centurj-. 
Up  to  the  time  of  Henry  IV.  (1589)  owing  to  the  dominion  of  feudal 
lords,  the  continual  strife  between  kings  and  nobles,  the  foreign  wars, 
and  especially  the  character  of  the  civilization,  little  attention  had 
been  given  to  the  arts  of  industry.  Although  the  manufacture  of  silks 
and  other  articles  which  had  been  carried  on  in  the  Italian  cities  had 
early  been  extended  to  the  districts  about  Lyons  and  other  places  in 
Southern  France,  yet  under  feudalism  which  prevailed,  the  people  lived 
almost  wholly  by  cultivating  the  soil,  engaging  only  in  that  system  of 
household  or  domestic  production  of  tools,  clothing  and  rude  articles, 
such  as  were  made  all  over  Europe  to  supply  necessarj'  wants. 

For  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  under  thirteen  kings,  the  French 
throne  had  been  occupied  by  the  House  of  Valois,  which  became  extinct  in 
the  year  1589  by  the  assassination  of  Henrj-  III.  In  the  midst  of  a  most 
cruel  and  barbarous  civil  and  religious  struggle,  lasting  for  nearly  forty 
years,  Henry  of  Navarre  ascended  the  throne.  During  this  period  128,- 
000  houses  had  been  destroyed  and  the  lives  of  800,000  persons  sacrificed. 
The  public  treasury-  was  empty,  the  national  resources  of  the  country 
were  exhausted,  and  bankruptcy,  ruin  and  beggary  pervaded  the  whole 
country.  Taxes  were  more  severe  and  burdensome  because  of  the  cor- 
ruption practiced,  by  which  only  one-half  of  the  amount  collected  reached 
the  public  treasury'.  The  art  of  agriculture  had  been  neglected  and  the 
whole  country  was  reduced  to  a  most  deplorable  condition.  It  was  under 
these  circumstances  that  Henry  IV.  (Henry  of  Navarre)  entered  upon 
his  administration  and  attempted  to  restore  France  to  a  prosperous 
condition.  Absorbed  in  political  affairs,  almost  constantly  engaged 
in  open  hostilities  or  in  suppressing  conspiracies,  he  personally  gave 
but  little  attention  to  the  financial  affairs  of  the  realm;  yet  enough  is 
known  of  his  views  of  the  proper  industrial  policy  which  a  state  should 
pursue  to  show  that  he  would  have  entered  vigorously  upon  the  advance- 
ment of  the  material  prosperity  of  the  country  had  he  lived  in  less  turbu- 
lent times.  "If  I  live,"  said  he,  "everj'  man  shall  have  a  fowl  to  put  in 
his  pot  for  his  Sunday  dinner."  Henry  had  been  the  leader  of  the  Prot- 
estant forces  of  the  country,  and  his  title  to  the  throne  was,  therefore, 
disputed  by  the  Pope  and  Philip  of  Spain.  For  five  years  he  waged  an 
inisuccessful  war  to  gain  the  crown.  Becoming  satisfied,  however,  that 
none  but  a  Catholic  king  could  rule  over  France,  he  renounced  the 
Protestant  faith  and  took  what  he  himself  termed  "the  perilous  leap. "  "In 
the  Cathedral  of  St.  Denis,"  says  a  historian  of  France, "upon  his  bended 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


knees  he  publicly  abjured  his  Calvin istic  errors,  and  was  restored  to  the 
bosom  of  the  Church  (1591)."  One  year  after  this  he  was  given  the 
keys  of  Paris,  entered  the  city  in  triumph  and  was  crowned  King  of 
France  and  Navarre.  His  reign  was  characterized  by  acts  of  generosity 
and  impartiality  toward  all  his  subjects.  While  he  had  betrayed  his 
Huguenot  followers  to  win  the  coveted  prize,  his  sense  of  justice  and 
devotion  to  their  principles  still  exercised  an  influence  on  his  administra- 
tion. The  conflict  between  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  was  brought 
to  a  close  in  1598.  The  Edict  of  Nantes  established  a  certain  degree  of 
religious  liberty  in  France.  It  guaranteed  to  the  Huguenots  freedom  of 
religious  worship,  admitted  them  to  all  public  offices  and  employments, 
and  a  "Chamber  of  Justice  was  established  to  protect  them  in  their  rights. 
They  were  allowed  to  maintain,  and  to  hold  certain  fortified  places.  They 
were  to  pay  tithes  to  the  Church,  and  to  observe  its  festivals  and 
Holy  days." 

For  nearly  a  century,  under  this  edict,  the  Protestants  enjoyed 
undisturbed  the  religious  rights  conferred.  The  importance  of  the  reign 
of  Henry  IV.  from  an  economic  point  of  view,  is  found  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  internal  affairs  of  the  State,  through  the  direction  of  his 
great  Minister  of  Finance,  Sully.  Sully  was  the  king's  tried  friend, 
having  been  ^.in  his  service  since  eleven  years  of  age,  followed  him 
through  his  wars  and  finally  become  his  intimate  counsellor  and  adviser. 
It  was  he,  who,  although  a  zealous  Protestant,  advised  Henry  to  become 
a  Catholic.  His  capacity  for  business,  his  knowledge  of  finance,  his 
administrative  faculties  peculiarly  fitted  him  for  the  duties  of  Minister 
of  Finance  which  he  so  well  performed.  He  visited  all  parts  of  the 
country,  personally  supervised  the  collection  of  taxes,  examined  accounts 
and  formulated  a  revenue  system  which  at  once  relieved  the  treasury  and 
put  the  administration  on  an  independent  footing.  The  nobles  were  for- 
bidden to  levy  taxes  on  their  own  account.  The  exemption  from  taxa- 
tion of  the  nobles,  and  all  those  who  made  the  military  a  profession,  was 
abolished.  "With  one-fourth  the  former  taxes,  by  the  end  of  the  reign  a 
surplus  of  20,000,000  francs  lay  in  the  treasury."  But  this  is  not  all  that 
distinguished  the  career  of  this  eminent  statesman.  His  energies  were 
also  directed  to  internal  improvements  and  industrial  advancement. 
Highways  and  roads  were  built  and  improved.  The  city  of  Paris  was 
adorned  by  the  erection  of  churches,  hospitals,  bridges  and  quays. 
The  army  was  reorganized  and  equipped,  dockyards  were  established, 
and  steps  taken  to  build  a  navy.  Sully  also  appreciated  the  importance  of 
manufacturing.  Artisans  were  invited  from  Holland  and  Venice.  Special 
encouragement  was  given  to  the  silk  industry  of  Lyons  and  the  tapestry 
indu.stry  of  Paris.  Sully  set  the  example  of  state  encouragement  to 
industries,  through  which  in  later  years  France  became  one  of  the  chief 
industrial  nations  of  tlie  world. 


During  the  century  which  followed,  the  country  was  so  absorbed 
in  foreign  wars  that  little  attention  was  given  to  manufacturing,  trade 
and  commerce.  The  period  from  1610  to  1643,  the  reign  of  Louis  XIII., 
is  distinguished  for  the  administration  of  Cardinal  Richelieu,  one  of  most 
absolute  despotism.  No  regard  was  had  for  the  masses.  He  referred 
to  the  common  people  as  "mules  spoiled  sooner  by  long  rest  than  long 
work.  If  they  were  too  happy  it  would  not  be  possible  to  keep  them  in 
duty,  if  they  were  freed  from  taxes  they  would  learn  to  be  disobedient." 
France  was  again  burdened  with  taxes  to  support  expensive  foreign 
wars  and  an  extravagant  court. 

The  reign  of  Louis  XIV.  began  in  1643,  when  he  was  five  years  of 
age,  under  the  regency  of  Anne  of  Austria  and  the  ministry  of  Cardinal 
Mazarin,  an  Italian.  It  continued  until  1715,  a  period  of  seventy -two 
years.  It  was  not,  however,  until  the  death  of  this  cardinal,  which  took 
place  in  1661,  that  Louis  himself  assumed  to  exercise  the  prerogative  of 
king.  Mazarin  had  said  that  "there  is  in  him  stuff  enough  for  four  kings 
and  one  honest  man."  On  one  occasion,  when  Louis  was  eight  years  of 
age,  Laporte  had  put  on  his  hat  and  sat  down  in  his  presence.  "How 
can  you  allow  yourself,"  said  Louis  "to  cover  3'our  head  in  my  presence 
and  sit  down  without  my  permission?"  "Pardon  me,  sir,"  replied 
Laporte,  "I  did  not  think  that  a  king  was  in  the  room;  Monsieur,  my 
cousin,  },ou  are  at  libert5'  to  depart."  In  1655  he  dispersed  parliament 
when  it  was  attempting  to  revise  certain  tax  laws,  and  informed  them 
that  hereafter  "they  .should  mind  their  own  proper  duties  and  not  inter- 
fere with  his  ordinances."  On  the  day  after  the  death  of  Mazarin, 
when  asked  by  the  President  of  the  Assembly  of  Priests,  "To  whom  shall 
I  hereafter  refer  questions  of  state?"  Louis  replied,  "To  me."  From 
this  time  on  he  was  sole  and  absolute  ruler  of  France.  His  motto  was, 
"The  State  is  my.self. "  The  power  of  the  nobles  had  been  broken  by 
Richelieu,  and  Mazarin  had  suppressed  the  parliament.  Conditions  were 
favorable  for  the  absolute  sway  of  a  dominating  character,  without  civil 
war  or  resistance.  Mazarin  had  given  more  attention  to  foreign  wars 
and  military  affairs  than  to  the  finances  and  internal  development  of  the 
State.  It  was  to  his  successor  that  the  country  was  indebted  for  a 
restoration  of  prosperity. 

Upon  the  death  of  Mazarin,  Colbert  soon  became  Minister  of 
Finance.  The  economic  policy  inaugurated  by  Colbert,  from  a  com- 
mercial point  of  view,  is  of  the  highest  importance.  Not  only  in  the 
founding  of  colonies,  the  police  and  municipal  regulations  of  Paris,  the 
construction  of  merchant  vessels,  the  erection  of  forts,  and  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Languedoc  canal  and  many  other  public  improvements,  did 
he  display  his  administrative  abilities,  but  the  encouragement  given  to 
manufacturing  under  his  administration,  placed  him  among  the  first 
prime  ministers  of  all  nations.      To  him  is  due  the  credit  of  introducing 


J'HUTECriOiV  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  UTHER  COVNTBIES. 


the  system  of  protection  to  native  industries  in  France.  The  first  gen- 
eral tariff  of  duties  on  imports  was  enacted  in  1664.  The  general  prin- 
ciples upon  which  it  was  based  are  as  follows: 

I.  To  reduce  the  duties  on  the  importations  of  all  articles  required 
for  the  manufactures  of  the  kingdom. 

2.  To  exclude  foreign  manufactures  by  raising  the  duties. 

The  principles  embodied  in  the  tariff  regulations  promulgated  by 
him  were  in  advance  of  the  economic  thought  of  other  countries.  It  will 
be  observed  that  the  ideas  entertained  by  modern  protectionists  were  in 
great  part  understood  by  this  minister.  The  import  of  those  raw 
materials,  the  like  of  which  cannot  be  produced  at  home,  was  encouraged 
through  low  duties.  Affording  ample  protection  to  home  industries  by 
duties  on  competing  imports,  is  to-day  one  of  the  cardinal  principles 
adhered  to  by  the  protectionists  of  all  countries. 

In  1667  duties  were  greatly  increased  on  hosiery,  cloths  of  all  kinds, 
tin,  glass,  prepared  skins,  carpets,  fabrics,  etc.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that  in  1665  Francis  Van  Robais  was  invited  by  Colbert  from 
Holland  to  establish  the  Dutch  art  of  spinning  and  dyeing  wool  and 
weaving  and  dressing  fine  cloth  in  France.  He  .set  up  his  factory  at 
Abbeville  and  obtained  the  exclusive  privilege  of  carrying  on  the  busi- 
ness within  ten  miles  of  that  city.  It  was  through  this  instrumentality 
that  the  foundation  was  laid  for  weaving  and  dyeing  those  fine  woolen 
fabrics  which  have  since  become  famous  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 
Under  the  influence  of  such  legislation  many  branches  of.indu.stry  were 
revived  and  became  of  great  importance.  Chantilly  soon  became  noted 
for  its  laces,  Cherbourg  for  glasses,  Louvieres  for  cloths.  La  Savon- 
niers  for  carpets,  Lyons  for  silks,  and  Paris  for  gobelin  tapestn,-.  The 
growth  of  industries  which  followed  the  policy  introduced  by  Colbert, 
not  only  vindicated  his  acts,  but  the  conception  which  he  so  early  formed 
of  the  sound  principles  of  protection,  has  made  him  famous  as  a  states- 
man and  conspicuous  as  an  economist  and  financier.  Although  he 
died  before  he  saw  the  full  benefits  of  his  sy.stem  realized,  yet  he 
did  more  for  France  than  any  prime  minister  or  monarch  who  had  pre- 
ceded him.  Colbert  could  not,  however,  carry  out  his  own  ideas  of  econ- 
omy and  fiscal  reforms.  Cautioning  the  king  against  his  extravagant 
expenditures  he  lost  the  favor  of  the  monarch  and  was  disgraced,  treated 
with  harshness,  and  died  in  1683,  nine  years  after  he  had  assumed  the 
duties  of  Minister  of  Finance. 

Although  Louis  XIV.  raised  France  to  a  degree  of  eminence  and 
power  to  which  it  had  never  before  attained,  his  reign  was  characterized 
not  only  by  the  most  absolute  tyranny,  but  by  a  spirit  of  religious  big- 
otry and  cruelty.  While  he  patronized  the  industrial  arts  and  in  many 
ways  advanced  the  material  prosperity  of  the  country,  yet  his  pensecu- 
tion  of   the  Huguenots,  which  began  immediately  after   the   death  of 


FRANCE. 


Colbert,  inflicted  a  blow  on  the  trade  and  industries  of  the  country  from 
which  it  did  not  recover  during  the  century  which  followed.  In  1685  the 
Edict  of  Nantes  was  revoked  and  the  Huguenots  were  stripped  of 
the  privileges  which  they  had  enjoyed  for  nearly  a  century.  Their 
ministers  were  driven  out  of  the  country,  their  schools  were  closed 
and  the  worship  of  the  Protestant  religion  was  forbidden.  The  liberal 
professions,  universities,  and  many  of  the  trades  and  industries  were 
closed  to  them.  Hunted  down  with  cavalry,  thrown  into  prisons,  shot 
down,  broken  over  wheels,  condemned  to  the  gibbet  for  refusing  to  sub 
mit  to  a  religious  faith  which  was  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  their  con 
science,  by  hundreds  of  thousands  they  fled  to  other  countries.  1685  is 
described  as  the  j'ear  of  the  depopulation  of  France.  All  efforts  to  pre- 
vent their  escape  were  ineffectual.  It  was  asserted  that  they  were  taking 
their  departure  to  show  their  disapproval  of  the  restrictions  which  were 
placed  on  their  going;  yet  when  restrictions  were  removed  emigration 
increased.  It  has  been  variously  estimated  by  historians  that  the 
emigration  reached  from  300,000  to  400,000  persons,  of  whom  100,000 
settled  in  Holland,  80,000  in  England  and  America,  25,000  in  Switzer- 
land and  75,000  in  Germany  and  Prussia ;  the  rest  went  to  Northern  Europe 
and  other  places.  The  accession  to  the  commercial  and  industrial  pop- 
ulation of  those  countries,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  welcomed, 
have  been  pointed  out.  The  injury  inflicted  on  the  industries  of  France 
cannot  be  measured  by  the  numbers  alone.  Artisans,  merchants  and 
trades-people  not  only  took  their  skill  with  them,  but  their  treasures  and 
wealth.      In  speaking  upon  this  phase  of  the  question,  R.  S.  Poole  says: 

It  follows  to  ask  what  was  the  material  loss  involved  in  their  exodus.  Caveirac 
is  again  the  lowest  in  his  estimates;  he  will  not  grant  the  export  of  more  than 
250,000  livres.  He  might  have  learnt  from  Count  d'Avaux  himself  that  those  least 
likely  to  magnify  the  sum  confessed  that  by  the  very  year  of  the  Recall  twenty 
million  livres  had  gone  out  of  the  country;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  wealthier  mer- 
chants deferred  their  departure  in  order  to  carry  as  much  as  they  could  with  them. 
Two  hundred  and  6fty  traders  are  said  to  have  quitted  Rouen  in  1687  and  1688. 
Probably  the  actual  amount  was  very  far  in  excess  of  these  twenty  millions,  and  a  cal- 
culation is  cited  by  Macpherson  which  even  affirms  that  every  individual  refugee 
in  England  brought  with  him  on   an   average  money  or  effects  to  the  value  of  /60. 

It  will  be  needless  to  add  many  statistics  of  the  injury   caused  by 

their  withdrawal  from  France.  Two  great  instances  are  typical  of  the  rest.  Lyons 
which  had  employed  18,000  silk-looms,  had  but  4000  remaining  by  the  end  of  the 
century.  Tours  with  the  same  interest  had  had  800  mills,  80,000  looms,  and  perhaps 
4000  work-people.  Of  its  3000  ribbon  factories  only  sixty  remained.  Equally  sig- 
nificant was  the  ruin  of  the  woolen  trade  of  Poitou.  Little  was  left  of  the  drugget 
manufacture  of  Coulonges  and  Chataigtieraie,  or  of  the  industry  in  serges  and 
bombazines  at  Thouars;  and  the  export  traffic  between  Chataigneraie  and  Canada 
by  way  of  La  Rochelle,  was  in  the  last  year  of  the  century  absolutely  extinct.' 

The  blow  inflicted  upon  the  industries  of  the  country  by  the  loss  of 

1  History  of  the  Huguenots,  ch.  3  and  15. 


PROTECTION  IX  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


SO  much  wealth,  so  many  skilled  artisans,  experienced  tradesmen  and 
enterprising  and  industrious  citizens,  in  fact  presents  onlj-  one  phase  of 
those  conditions  which  tended  to  retard  the  industrial  progress  of  the 
countr}-.  The  form  of  government,  the  system  of  taxation,  the  domina- 
tion of  kings  and  nobles,  the  almost  continuous  foreign  wars  and  internal 
strifes,  were  sufficient  of  themselves  to  keep  France  back.  The  corrup- 
tion which  prevailed  in  official  circles,  the  extravagance  and  immorality 
of  the  court,  all  combined  to  reduce  France  to  a  most  appalling  condition. 
Upon  the  death  of  L,ouis  XIV.,  Louis  XV.,  then  a  mere  child,  became 
king,  under  the  regency  of  his  nephew  Philip  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  and 
Dubois  became  prime  minister. 

It  was  under  the  ministry  of  Dubois  that  an  attempt  was  made  to 
improve  the  finances  of  the  country  by  debasing  the  coins  of  the  realm  and 
flooding  the  country  with  a  vast  quantity  of  paper  money  under  the  plan 
of  John  L,aw,  known  as  the  Mississippi  Scheme.  Public  revenues  had 
been  exhausted.  The  expenditures  exceeded  the  receipts  by  a  large  sum, 
the  debt  had  reached  the  enormous  sum  of  5,000,000,000  francs  and  the 
government  was  without  credit.  The  experiment  in  finance  which 
was  tried,  only  added  to  the  calamities  and  business  misfortunes  from 
which  the  country  was  suffering.  The  metallic  currency  was  depreciated 
one-fifth  by  a  re-coinage  scheme,  through  which  a  person  could  take  one 
hundred  pieces  of  gold  or  silver  to  the  mint  and  have  them  re-coined  into 
pieces,  each  having  the  same  nominal  value  as  the  pieces  presented,  but 
only  four-fifths  of  the  weight.  This  attempt  to  make  something  out  of 
nothing  naturally  failed.  The  scheme  of  Law  involved  the  establishment 
of  a  royal  bank  which  issued  paper  money  based  on  the  revenues  of  the 
government,  and  from  its  profits  was  to  pay  off  the  national  debt.  Subse- 
quently the  West  India  Company  was  organized,  having  for  its  purpose 
the  colonization  of  the  Louisiana  territory,  then  owned  by  France,  and  the 
development  of  trade  with  the  colony  and  the  West  India  islands.  The 
whole  country  was  thrown  into  a  state  of  excitement  over  the  reports  that 
were  set  afloat  of  the  gold  and  silver  in  the  colony,  its  resources,  the 
magnitude  of  the  trade  and  the  profits  which  might  be  derived  from  the 
enterprise.  A  charter  was  granted  to  the  company,  stock  was  issued  and 
put  on  the  market  for  sale.  The  .shares  of  stock  soon  advanced  to  thirty 
or  forty  times  their  cost.  Paper  money  was  issued  to  the  amount  of 
2,000,000^000  francs.  In  a  .short  time  the  tables  were  turned.  The 
whole  scheme  proved  to  be  a  visionary  adventure  without  a  .substantial 
basis.  Ships  did  not  return  from  the  colonies  with  gold  and  silver  as  was 
predicted.  The  trade  was  insignificant.  The  people  lost  confidence  and 
as  the  day  for  liquidation  approached  the  whole  country  was  plunged  into 
bankruptcy  and  financial  ruin.  Law  left  the  country  to  escape  the  wrath 
of  his  victims.  The  experience  of  the  French  people  in  this  fiat  money 
enterprise,  although  it  entailed   great  suffering  and  hardship  on  those 


who  were  victimized,  served  to  furnish  the  world  a  lesson  in  financiering 
that  has  not  been  forgotten. 

This  was  the  condition  of  affairs  in  1723  when  the  ministry  of 
Dubois  ceased  and  Louis,  at  the  age  of  thirteen,  began  to  rule  with  the 
Duke  of  Bourbon  as  his  minister.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  recount 
the  disasters  which  befell  the  country.  Although  Cardinal  Fleury  who 
succeeded  to  the  ministry  in  1726  attempted  to  preserve  peace  and  restore 
the  fortunes  of  the  country,  his  efforts  failed.  The  war  of  the  Succes- 
sion of  Poland  (1733-35),  thewarof  the  Austrian Succe.ssionCi74i-4S),  and 
the  Seven  Years'  War  between  France  and  England,  which  involved  the 
British  and  French  colonies  in  America,  in  what  is  known  as  the  French 
and  Indian  War,  from  1754  to  1763,  left  for  the  country  but  little  peace. 
Upon  the  death  of  Louis  XV.,  in  1774,  Louis  XVI.,  at  twenty  years  of 
age  became  king  and  reigned  until  driven  from  the  throne  at  the  break- 
ing out  of  the  Revolution  in  1789.  He  was  finally  tried,  convicted  and 
beheaded,  for  conspiring  and  plotting  against  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
A  ver>'  brief  review  of  the  conditions  which  prevailed  in  France  immedi- 
ately preceding,  and  which  culminated  in  the  French  Revolution,  will 
serve  to  show  how  difficult  industrial  progress  had  become.  All  the 
privileges,  property  and  political  rights  had  become  vested  in  the  clergy, 
the  nobles  and  the  king.  They  enjoyed  immunities,  favors,  pensions 
and  preferments,  while  the  mass  of  the  population  bore  the  burden  of 
taxation.  The  privileged  classes  numbered  about  270,000  persons,  140,000 
nobles,  130,000  clergy.  There  were  25,000  to  30,000  noble  families,  3000 
monks,  2500  monasteries,  37,000  nuns,  1500  convents,  and  60,000  curates 
and  vicars  m  the  churches  and  chapels.  H.  A.  Taine  gives  the  follow- 
ing description  of  the  economic  condition  of  the  people : 

On  each  square  league  of  territory  and  to  each  thousand  of  inhabitants,  one 
noble  family  in  its  weather-cock  mansion,  in  each  village  a  curate  and  his  church, 
and,   every  six  or  seven  leagues,  a  conventional  body  of  men,  or  women.     . 

A  fifth  of    the  soil  belongs  to  the  crown  and   the   communes, 

a  fifth  to  the  third  estate,  a  fifth  to  the  rural  population,  a  fifth  to  the  nobles 
and  a  fifth  to  the  clergj-.  Accordingly,  if  we  deduct  the  public  lands,  the  privi- 
leged classes  own  one-half  of  the  kingdom.  This  large  portion,  moreover,  is  at 
the  same  time  the  richest,  for  it  comprises  almost  all  the  large  and  handsome 
buildings,  the  palaces,  castles,  convents  and  cathedrals,  and  almost  all  the  valuable 
movable  property,  such  is  the  total  or  partial  exemption  from  taxation.  The  tax 
collectors  halted  in  their  presence,  because  the  king  well  knows  that  feudal  prop- 
erty has  the  same  origin  as  his  own ;  if  royalty  is  one  privilege,  seigniory  i; 
another;  the  king  himself  is  simply   the  most   privileged   among   the  privileged. 

.     .     .     After  the  assaults  of  450  years,  taxation,  the   first  of  fiscal  instrumental 
ities,  the  most  burdensome  of  all,  leaves   feudal    property    almost  intact.      .      .      . 
The  privileged  person  avoids  or  repels  taxation,  not  merely  because  it  despoils  him, 
but  because  it  belittles  him  ;   it  is  a  mark   of   plebeian  condition,   that  is  to  say,  of 
former  servitude,  and  he  resists  the  fisc  as  much  through  pride  as  through  interest 

.      .      La    Bruyere    wrote    just    a    century    before     17S9,    'Certain    savage-lookinj 
beings,  male  and  female,  are  seen    in  the   country,  bk 


d  and  sunburnt, 


riiOTECriOK  IN  COXTTXEKTAL  AND  OTHER  COCNTRIES. 


belonging  to  the  soil,  which  they  dig  and  grub  with  invincible  stubbornness. 
They  seem  capable  of  articulation,  and  when  they  stand  erect  they  display  human 
lineaments.  They  are,  in  fact,  men.  They  retire  at  night  into  their  dens,  w-here 
they  live  on  black  bread,  water  and  roots.  They  spare  other  human  beings  the 
trouble  of  sowing,  plowing  and  harvesting,  and  thus  should  not  be  in  want  of 
the  bread  they  have  planted. '  They  continue  in  want  of  it  during  twenty-five 
years  after  this,  and  die  in  herds.  I  estimate  that  in  1715  more  than  one-third  of 
the  population,  six  millions,  perish  with  hunger  and  destitution.  The  picture, 
accordingly,  for  the  first  quarter  of  the  century  preceding  the  Revolution,  far  from 
being  overdrawn,  is  the  reverse;  we  shall  see  that,  during  more  than  half  a  centurj-, 
up  to  the  death  of  Louis  XV. ,  it  is  exact ;  perhaps,  instead  of  weakening  any  qf 
its  points,  they  should  be  strengthened.  .  .  .  Undoubtedly  the  government 
under  Louis  XVI.  is  milder;  the  inteudants  are  more  human,  the  administration 
is  less  rigid,  the  'taille'  becomes  less  unequal,  and  the  'corvee'  is  less  onerous 
through  its  transformation,  in  short,  misery  has  diminished,  and  yet  this  is  greater 
than  human  nature  can  bear.  Examine  administrative  correspondence  for  the 
last  thirty  years  preceding  the  Revolution.  Countless  statements  reveal  excessive 
suffering,  even  when  not  terminating  in  furj'.  Life  to  a  man  of  the  lower  class,  to 
an  artisan,  or  workman,  subsisting  on  the  labor  of  his  own  hands,  is  evidently 
precarious,  he  obtains  simply  enough  to  keep  him  from  starvation  and  he  does  not 
alwaj-s  get  that.  Here,  in  four  districts,  'the  inhabitants  live  only  on  buckwheat,' 
and  for  five  years,  the  apple  crop  having  failed,  they  drink  only  water.  There,  in 
a  country  of  vineyards,  'the  vinedressers  each  year  are  reduced,  for  the  most  part 
to  begging  their  bread  during  the  dull  season. '  .  .  .  In  a  remote  canton  the 
peasants  cut  the  grain  still  green  and  dry  it  in  the  oven,  because  they  are  too  hun- 
grj-  to  wait.  .  .  Between  1750  and  1760,  the  idlers  who  eat  suppers  begin  to 
regard  with  compassion  and  alarm  the  laborers  who  go  without  dinners.  Why  are 
the  latter  so  impoverished,  and  by  what  chance,  on  a  soil  as  rich  as  that  of  France, 
do  those  lack  bread  who  grow  the  grain?  In  the  fir.st  place,  many  farms  remain 
uncultivated,  and,  what  is  worse,  many  are  deserted.  According  to  the  best 
observers,  'one-quarter  of  the  soil  is  absolutely  lying  waste.  .  .  Hundreds  and 
hundreds  of  arpents  of  heath  and  moor  form  extensive  deserts. '  .  .  .  This  is 
not  sterilit}-  but  decadence.  The  regime  invented  by  Louis  XIV.  has  produced  its 
effect ;  the  soil  for  a  century  past  is  reverting  back  to  a  wild  state.  ...  In  the 
second  place,  cultivation,  when  it  does  take  place,  is  carried  on  according  to 
mediaeval  modes.  Arthur  Young,  in  17S9,  considers  that  French  agriculture  has 
not  progressed  beyond  that  of  the  tenth  century.  "  • 

It  seems  hardly  credible  that  such  extremes  could  have  existed  in 
France.  The  French  court  and  the  life  of  the  nobles  were  noted  for  their 
gayety,  fashion  and  splendor,  yet  the  masses  were  doomed  to  the  most 
revolting  servitude  and  degradation.  It  is  a  most  remarkable  fact  that 
under  the  conditions  described,  the  French  peasants,  the  cultivators  of  the 
soil,  had  by  1760  become  the  owners  of  one-quarter  of  the  land,  possessed 
in  small  holdings,  but  this  it  must  be  remembered,  consisted  of  the  poor- 
est land.  "The  .small  cultivator,"  says  Taine,  "however,  in  becoming 
the  po.ssessor  of  the  soil  asstimes  its  charges.  Simply  as  a  day  laborer  and 
with  his  arms  alone,  he  was  only  partially  affected  by  the  taxes,  but  now 
vainly  is  he  poor  and  declaring  him.self  still  poorer  ;  the  fisc  has  a  hold 


on  him  and  every  portion  of  his  new  possession."  It  seems,  however, 
that  the  taxes  became  so  burdensome  that  tillage  was  unprofitable.  The 
poll  tax  alone,  in  17 15,  amounted  to  66,000,000  livres,  in  1759  to 
90,000,000,  and  by  1789  it  had  reached  110,000,000.  The  cry  of  the 
farmer  was  :  ' '  Too  much  is  taken  from  me  because  not  enough  is  taken 
from  the  privilege.  Not  only  do  the  privilege  force  me  to  pay  in  their 
place,  but,  again,  they  previously  deduct  from  my  earnings  their  ecclesi- 
astes  and  feudal  dues. ' ' 

Out  of  an  income  of  100  francs  he  was  compelled  to  pay  53  francs  to 
the  collector,  14  to  the  seignior,  and  more  than  14  francs  to  the  church 
out  of  the  remaining  18  or  19  francs.  The  collection  of  taxes  was  farmed 
out  by  the  king,  to  venal  and  corrupt  officials,  who  were  permitted  to 
keep  all  they  collected  over  a  certain  sum.  A  law  was  enforced  which 
compelled  each  family  to  buy  large  quantities  of  salt  whether  they  needed 
it  or  not,  for  the  purpose  of  swelling  the  revenue  derived  from  the  tax  on 
this  commodity.  Peasants  and  laborers  were  compelled  to  work  on  roads 
and  bridges  without  pay.  The  small  farmer  was  under  the  absolute 
control  of  the  nobles  and  subjected  to  the  most  arbitrary  exactions  and 
species  of  robbery.  He  must  grind  his  corn  at  the  lord's  mill  and  press 
his  grapes  at  the  lord's  wine  press,  and  pay  whatever  sura  was  exacted. 
Louis  engaged  in  corrupt  schemes  of  impoverishing  the  people  and  filling 
the  public  treasury.  The  shipment  of  grain  was  prohibited  from  one 
province  into  another,  while  he  lowered  the  price  and  bought  up  the  sur- 
plus, and  when  the  scarcity  thus  brought  about  enhanced  prices,  he  sold 
at  a  profit.  He  laid  tribute  on  the  business  and  industrial  classes  by 
granting  licenses  and  selling  to  individuals  the  sole  right  to  engage  in  a 
particular  calling  or  trade.  Class  hatred  became  intense  and  a  spirit  of 
unrest  and  jealousy  per\'aded  the  whole  nation.  The  nobles  looked 
upon  the  trading,  industrial  and  laboring  classes  with  contempt.  The 
king  treated  them  "  only  as  a  sponge  to  be  squeezed."  This  was  the 
condition  under  which  26,000,000  people  existed  in  1789.  By  the 
writings  of  Rosseau  and  Voltaire,  they  were  aroused  to  a  sense  of  their 
rights  and  liberties.  They  became  frenzied  with  rage  against  their  oppres- 
sors, and  the  whole  nation  was  plunged  into  a  revolution  which  overthrew 
the  monarchy,  brought  the  king  to  the  guillotine,  confiscated  the  property 
of  nobles  and  clergy,  and  established  the  first  republic.  It  was  shortly 
after  this,  about  1793,  that  the  people  rallied  to  the  standard  of  Napoleon 
I.,  who  until  18 15  was  engaged  in  the  most  gigantic  wars  of  modern  times. 
It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  trace  the  events  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, the  campaigns  of  Napoleon,  or  the  military  achievements  or  dis- 
asters which  France  witnessed  during  these  eventful  years.  Yet  all  this 
has  an  economic  bearing  for  two  reasons.  First,  it  serves  to  show  the 
difficulties  encountered  by  the  French  people  in  attempting  to  build  up 
their  industries  and  pro.secute  trade  and  commerce.  Second,  it  was 
32 


Taxation 
2nd  feudal 
burdens. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


against  the  conditions  described  that  Quesnay,  Turgot  and  the  French 
economists  of  this  time  directed  their  attack.  Unable  in  all  things  to  dis- 
tinguish between  that  which  is  beneficial  to  a  nation  and  those  practices 
which  are  injurious,  overwhelmed  by  the  revolting  condition  of  the  peo- 
ple, the  school  of  economic  writers  which  arose  in  France  immediately 
before  the  French  Revolution,  fell  into  many  errors.  The  social  and 
political  evils  which  existed,  the  burdensome  system  of  taxation,  the 
meddlesome  and  arbitrary  interference  with  trade,  commerce  and  employ- 
ments, all  combined  to  influence  their  opinions  upon  economic  questions. 
The  despotism  of  the  king,  clergy  and  nobles,  their  arbitrarj'  and  arro- 
gant treatment  of  the  masses,  engendered  an  extreme  spirit  in  favor  of 
individual  liberty  and  personal  rights,  which  found  a  place  in  their  writ- 
ings and  formed  the  basis  of  their  creed.  The  school  of  economists,  or 
Phj'siocrats,  as  they  were  called,  was  founded  by  Quesnay,  the  phj-sician 
of  lyouis  XV.  Because  of  the  radical  ground  taken  in  favor  of  individu-  • 
alism  and  against  an  interference  by  the  governflient  in  private  affairs, 
they  were  also  known  as  the  Personal  Rights  party.  It  was  with  these 
writers  that  the  expression  laissez  faire  originated. 

"  Let  things  alone — laissez  f aire,  and  laissez  passer." 
We  have  from  the  Centurj'  Dictionary  the  following  definition  and 
statement  of  the  origin  of  the  above  expression: 

A  letting  alone;  a  general  non-interference  with  individual  freedom  of  action. 
The  let  alone  principle  or  policy  in  goverument  and  political  economy. 

The  term  was  first  used  in  France  to  distinguish  that  principle  of  political 
economy  which  would  leave  industry  and  trade  absolutely  free  from  taxation  or 
restriction  by  governments,  except  .so  far  as  required  by  public  peace  and  order.  It 
has  since  been  extended  to  include  non-interference  by  controlling  authority  with  any 
guiltless  exercise  of  individual  will. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  extreme  views  entertained  by  these  writers 
arose  from  the  conditions  which  existed  in  France  at  that  time.  The 
people  had  been  over-governed.  A  despotic  power  held  censorship  over 
all  phases  of  individual  action.  Freedom  of  political  discussion  was 
unknown.  The  press  could  only  publish  and  say  what  was  permitted  by 
the  government.  Again  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  spirit  of  free 
government  which  swept  over  the  world  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  found  expression  in  the  American  Revolution,  had  .seized 
hold  of  the  educated  men  of  both  Europe  and  America  before  the  out- 
break finally  came  in  France.  In  discussing  the  economic  ideas  of 
Quesnay  and  his  disciples,  Professor  Robert  Ellis  Thompson  say.^  :  ' 

If  the  mercantile  school  unduly  subordinated  the  science  to  the  art,  the  econo- 
mists went  to  the  other  extreme  and  made  a  complete  divorce  between  them.  Start- 
ing from  a  few  simple  ideas  as  the  postulates  of  science,  they  built  up  a  fantastic 
structure  of  deductions  and  theories,  that  .stood  in  no  vital  relation  to  the  actual  life 

1  KleniL-Tits  of  Political  Kconomy,  p.  17. 


FJiANCE. 

of  society.     Their  professed  aim  was  to  attain  a  natural  line  of  thought,  and  in  that 
age  the  "  natural  "  was  conceived  as  the  a;itithesis  of  civilization,  as  then  existing. 

In  Quesnay's  views,  nature — by  which  he  meant  the  productive  powers  of  the 
soil— is  the  sole  source  of  a  nation's  wealth  ;  agricultural  labor  is  therefore  the  only 
productive  industry,  all  others  being  sterile.  That  this  labor  produces  more  than  the 
farmer  and  his  household  consume,  is  the  origin  of  all  wealth, — which  is  merely  the 
net-product  of  his  tillage.  The  values  produced  by  all  other  labor  are  measured  by 
the  cost  of  raw  materials  and  the  workman's  food.  The  web  of  cotton  cloth  is  but  so 
much  raw  cotton  and  so  much  corn  turned  into  another  form,  but  retaining  the  same 
value.  The  utility  of  the  new  form  is  greater ;  the  amount  of  wealth  the  same. 
From  this  he  inferred  that  national  policy  should  do  nothing  to  develop  such  sterile 
industries  as  commerce  and  manufactures,  but  merely  remove  all  restrictions  from 
agriculture,  from  the  trade  in  grain,  etc.  As  agriculture  alone  produces  wealth,  it 
alone  must,  in  the  last  resort,  bear  all  the  national  burdens,  however  these  may  be 
imposed.  Turgot,  his  chief  disciple,  divests  the  theory  of  much  that  is  fantastic, 
and  in  his  policy  as  Minister  of  Finance  applied  for  the  most  part  merely  its  just 
rejection  of  the  system  of  monopolies,  close  corporations,  duties  on  exports,  etc. 

The  views  held  by  this  sect  of  economists  of  the  true  functions  of 
government  were  that  governments  are  at  the  most  onh'  necessary  evils, 
and  that  their  powers  should  be  limited  to  simply  the  performance  of 
police  regulations  and  the  preservation  of  order,  while  individuals  should 
be  permitted  to  exercise  the  utmost  freedom  of  action.  Speaking  of  this 
attempt  to  exalt  the  individual  above  the  State,  Professor  Ingram 
says: 

That  the  tendency  of  the  school  was  unduly  to  consecrate  the  spirit  of  indi- 
vidualism and  the  state  of  non-government.  .  .  .  But  what  the  physiocrats'  ideas 
with  the  normal  method  of  government  were,  appears  from  Quesnay's  advice  to  the 
dauphin,  that  when  he  became  king  he  should  do  nothing  but  let  the  law  rule.  The 
laws  having  been  of  course  first  brought  into  conformity  with  they«jr  natur<T. 

It  is  thus  apparent  that  the  principle  of  individual  rights  and  liber- 
iits  which  the  Physiocrats  carried  to  such  an  extent  in  their  economic 
writings  and  the  importance  which  they  attached  to  placing  restrictions 
and  bounds  upon  governmental  interference  arose  from  political  as  well 
as  economic  considerations.  Living  under  an  arbitrary,  meddlesome 
and  despotic  government,  which  had  used  its  powers  to  oppress  and 
enslave  the  people,  their  distrust  of  all  governmental  control  and  jealousy 
of  their  private  rights  had  a  just  basis  for  expression.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances it  was  most  natural  that  they  should  have  carried  their  prin- 
ciples of  individualism  to  an  extreme  which  in  more  enlightened  times 
and  under  a  popular  form  of  government  would  not  become  necessary. 
Understanding  the  conditions  which  surrounded  the  French  economists 
the  motives  and  purposes  which  influenced  their  opinions,  their  mistaken 
notions  are  excusable.  Agriculture  was  regarded  by  the  French  econ- 
omists as  of  the  first  importance  to  the  nation.  The  decay  of  this  industry, 
the  lack  of  progress  in  cultivating  the  soil,  the  miserable  condition  of  the 
rural  population,  had  attracted  the  attention  of  not  only  French  writers, 


PROTECTIOX  IN  CONriSENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


but  of  Englishmen  as  well.  It  was  prominently  brought  forward  in  the 
writings  of  Arthur  Young,  who  made  special  reports  on  agriculture  in  Eng- 
land which  contained  references  to  its  condition  in  France  also,  based  upon 
his  personal  observations.  The  Earl  of  Lauderdale,  in  his  "  Nature  and 
Origin  of  Public  Wealth,"  written  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
commenting  on  the  question  of  French  agriculture,  quotes  Quesnay  as sa},- 
ng:  "  That  in  France  out  of  36,000,000  of  acres  under  plow,  30,000,000 
are  cultivated  by  tenantry  who  are  so  poor  that  the  landlord  is  obliged  to 
furnish  laboring  cattle  and  feed,  and  often  even  to  advance  money  till  the 
first  han'est  for  payment  of  the  expenses  of  the  farmer's  living  and  of 
his  farming  instruments. ' ' 

In  reflecting  on  the  means  by  which  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of 
France  might  be  augmented,  these  writers  saw  the  vast  improvement 
which  could  be  made  in  agriculture — how  it  would  increase  the  independ- 
ence of  the  people  and  bring  about  a  more  equal  distribution  of  property, 
and  the  increased  einployment  and  rewards  of  labor  which  would  follow. 
While  in  comparison  with  other  industrial  pursuits  they  overestimated  its 
importance,  yet  this  error  was  not  so  serious  as  the  one  committed  by 
Cobden  and  his  associates  in  abandoning  agriculture  altogether,  and 
attempting  to  turn  the  energies  of  the  English  people  wholly  to  manufac- 
turing. The  literature  of  the  Manchester  School  is  filled  with  words 
of  praise  for  the  French  economists.  They  are  held  up  as  re]5re- 
sentatives  of  the  cau.se  of  free  trade,  and  yet  their  views  upon  the 
importance  of  agriculture  are  repudiated  and  the  laisscz  /aire  principle 
is  seized  upon  and  made  the  basis  of  an  economic  policy,  while  with  the 
Frenchman  it  was  regarded  more  as  of  political  importance  and  had  less 
application  to  economics,  as  applied  to  trade,  commerce  and  industries. 

During  a  very  short  period,  in  1774,  Turgot  was  Minister  of  Finance 
of  Louis  XVI.  He  attempted  many  reforms  which  are  claimed  by  certain 
economists  to  have  been  in  the  direction  of  free  trade,  yet  what  he  did 
does  not  show  that  Turgot  would  have  permitted  the  destruction  even  of 
the  manufacturing  industries  of  France  by  free  competition.  He  proposed 
the  abolition  of  duties  on  grain,  between  the  various  provinces  of  the 
country.  He  attempted  to  establish  a  uniform  system  of  taxation  and 
opposed  the  policy  which  so  long  had  exempted  the  clergy,  feudal  lords 
or  large  land-owners  from  taxation.  His  efforts  at  reform  aroused  a  storm 
of  opposition  from  the  clergy  and  nobles,  who  refused  to  surrender  the 
privileges  which  they  so  long  had  held,  and  he  was  compelled  to  retire 
from  the  ministry.  It  has  been  a  practice  of  free  trade  writers  to  claim 
as  belonging  to  their  school,  every  statesman  and  economist  of  those 
earlier  periods  who  attempted  to  abolish  the  vicious  usages  or  unequal 
and  unjust  forms  of  taxation  which  prevailed,  or  who  recommended 
wi.ser  economic  methods,  even  though  what  they  did,  or  favored, 
were  the  methods  now  approved  by  all.      Tlie  question  of  protection  or 


free  trade  as  it  now  is,  and  as  it  has  in  recent  years  been  presented  to  the 
world,  was  not  then  at  all  considered.  Through  jealousy  or  for  the  pur- 
pose of  retaliation,  the  people  of  one  nation  were,  in  many  instances, 
prohibited  from  trading  with  another.  Even  the  citizens  of  one  country 
visiting  another  were  often  subject  to  seizure,  and  their  ships  and  cargoes 
were  treated  in  the  same  way.  Freedom  of  trade  in  this  age  simply  meant 
the  right  to  trade  at  all.  The  withdrawal  of  prohibitions  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  import  duties  sufficient  and  for  the  purpose  of  fostering  and  encour- 
aging home  industries,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  step  toward  free  trade  as 
it  is  understood  to-day.  What  the  French  economists  would  have  advo- 
cated under  different  political  and  economic  conditions,  it  is  difficult  to 
say,  but  to  repudiate  their  views  upon  the  importance  of  agriculture  and 
accept  only  their  personal  liberty  ideas  which  were  directed  against  politi- 
cal tyranny,  special  privileges  and  arbitrary  and  unjust  discriminations 
and  restrictions,  does  not  strengthen  the  cause  of  free  trade. 

The  writings  and  teachings  of  the  French  economists  exerted  some 
influence  upon  the  economic  thought  of  the  time  and  undoubtedly  con- 
tributed to  the  more  liberal  policy  which  found  expression  in  the  commer- 
cial treaty  which  was  entered  into  with  England  in  1786.  This  was  not, 
however,  the  first  commercial  treaty  which  had  been  made  between  Eng- 
land and  France.  One  was  entered  into  as  early  as  1606,  but  the  indus- 
tries of  both  countries  at  that  time  were  so  insignificant  that  it  can  scarcely 
be  said  that  any  industrial  advantages  were  derived  from  it  by  either  coun- 
try. In  1626  trade  between  the  two  countries  had  been  prohibited,  yet 
commercial  relations  were  reopened  a  few  years  later  by  a  treaty  effected 
in  1632.  In  1 64 1  many  laws  were  enacted  by  France  injurious  to 
British  trade,  which  were  followed  by  a  prohibition  on  the  part  of  England 
of  the  importation  of  wines,  wool  and  silk  from  France,  and  the  French  in 
turn  seized  the  woolen  goods  of  the  British  merchants.  In  1654,  however, 
a  treaty  was  effected  by  which  English  merchants  were  permitted  to  sell 
their  goods  in  France.  Under  this  treaty  considerable  trade  was  carried 
on  between  the  two  countries.  With  the  manufacturing  pre-eminence  of 
the  Netherlands  at  this  time  and  the  export  trade  in  coarse  articles,  which 
had  then  to  some  extent  begun  from  England,  France  was  being  supplied 
and  her  trade  monopolized  by  foreigners.  The  French  duties,  however, 
were  soon  increased.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Colbert  became  minister 
and  attempted  to  encourage  the  establishment  of  industries.  After  the 
death  of  Colbert,  during  the  remaining  3'ears  of  the  century,  counter- 
prohibitions  were  imposed  by  both  countries.  Under  the  treaty  of 
Utrecht,  concluded  in  17 13,  the  British  representatives,  under  instruc- 
tion from  the  government,  procured  the  incorporation  of  forty-one 
articles  relating  to  commerce  and  navigation,  which  embraced  reciprocal 
trade  under  low  duties,  but  these  provisions  of  the  treaty  were  rejected  by 
parliament.     Tlie  provisions  which  were   most   objected   to  were   those 


PROTECTIOX  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


which  provided  that  England  should  admit  goods  from  France  upon  the 
same  terms  as  those  from  other  nations.  The  question  arose  how  this 
might  affect  the  treaty  of  1703,  under  which  Portuguese  wine  was  being 
admitted  at  two-thirds  the  duty  imposed  on  that  from  France.  The 
Portuguese  trade  had  become  verj'  profitable.  From  1713  to  1782  no 
efforts  were  made  to  establish  more  favorable  relations  between  the  twii 
countries.  Negotiations  were  opened,  however,  in  1782  which  failed,  and 
in  1785  France  again  prohibited  the  import  of  British  goods.  In  the 
following  spring  negotiations  were  reopened  and  a  commercial  treat\- 
was  made.  Mr.  Eden  was  sent  to  Paris  to  represent  the  British  Govern- 
ment and  there  met  M.  de  Rayneval,  the  special  commissioner  intrusted 
by  the  French  Government  with  the  negotiations.  Before  this  com- 
mercial hostilities  which  had  prevailed  and  the  restrictions  which  had 
been  imposed  by  each  country  on  the  produce  of  the  other  had  been  very 
damaging  to  the  trade  of  both.  They  were  practicing  a  system  of 
prohibitions  which,  under  the  views  entertained  by  the  .statesmen  of  the 
two  countries,  was  certainly  very  unwise.  The  import  of  manufactured 
silk,  ribbons  and  ma"ny  other  articles  for  which  France  was  especially 
noted,  was  prohibited  in  England.  The  terms  of  the  treaty  provided  that 
French  wines  were  to  be  admitted  into  England  under  the  same  duties  as 
those  which  had  been  paid  by  Portugal.  The  duty  on  French  vinegar 
was  fixed  at  7  shillings  per  gallon  ;  olive  oil  was  to  come  under  the  most 
favored  nation  clause  ;  French  cambrics  and  lawns  were  admitted  at  a 
duty  of  5  shillings  per  piece  of  7^4^  yards.  In  return  for  theee  concessions 
France  agreed  to  admit  British  linens  under  the  same  duty  which  she 
imposed  on  those  of  Holland  and  Flanders.  The  duty  on  hardware  was 
fixed  at  10  percent  ad  valorem.  On  cotton,  woolens  and  hosiery,  12  per 
cent,  but  the  importation  of  these  goods  when  mixed  with  silk  was  pro- 
hibited. Other  commodities  were  to  be  admitted  into  both  nations  under 
reciprocal  duties  agreed  upon.  Saddlery  at  15  per  cent  ad  valorem  ;  milli- 
nery, porcelain,  earthenware,  pottery,  plate  glass,  at  12  per  cent,  and 
gauzes  at  10  per  cent.  The  treaty  further  removed  a  great  many  restric- 
tions and  hindrances  which  had  been  placed  on  merchants  and  traders. 

A  glance  at  the  situation  in  England  at  this  time  will  show  that 
there  was  not  the  slightest  danger  of  an  injury  to  British  industries 
by  imports  of  competing  commodities  from  France.  English  manu- 
facturers had  begun  to  avail  them.seh-es  of  the  advantages  of  the  new 
inventions  and  improvements  in  textile  manufacturing.  Chemical  bleach- 
ing had  been  introduced  from  France ;  calico  printing  was  carried  on  by 
machinery;  the  steam  engine  had  been  invented  the  j^ear  before;  the  spin- 
ning jenny  had  been  in  use  nearly  twenty  years;  the  water  frame,  seven- 
teen years;  combing  by  machinery,  as  introduced  by  Hargreaves,  thirteen 
years;  and  the  power  loom  was  in  jiroce.ss  of  completion.  The  superiority  of 
English  manufactures  at  tliis  time  over  the  French,  in  making  most  of  the 


articles  which  were  affected  by  the  treaty,  was  such  that  it  was  absolutely 
certain  that  British  manufacturers  were  not  only  not  exposing  their  indus- 
tries to  ruinous  competition,  but  that  they  were  getting  decidedly  the  best 
end  of  the  bargain  and  that  the  treaty  would  open  the  French  market  to  a 
large  trade  in  their  goods.  On  the  other  hand,  they  would  receive  from 
France,  wines,  oil,  vinegar,  and  non-competing  articles,  with  the  excep- 
tion, however,  of  some  finer  fabrics,  furniture  and  articles  of  luxury, 
which  were  finding  their  way  into  the  palaces  and  homes  of  the  English 
nobility  through  the  smuggler,  regardless  of  prohibitions  or  customs 
duties.  England  had  built  up  a  trade  in  the  cheaper  and  more  ordinary 
wares,  and  was  still  extending  it  to  the  Colonies,  the  New  World,  to 
Russia  and  throughout  Europe,  while  France  had  advanced  more  rapidly 
in  the  making  of  the  more  costly  articles  of  luxury.  At  this  time  the 
British  were  trading  largely  in  India,  becoming  the  distributors  of  tea, 
coffee,  spices  and  Oriental  wares.  France  was  increasing  her  production 
of  wine,  hence  the  more  important  features  of  the  treaty  tended  to 
encourage  trade  between  the  two  countries  in  non-competing  articles  and 
to  open  the  French  market  to  British  goods.  But  that  there  was  any 
intention  on  the  part  of  England  to  expose  her  industries  to  ruinous 
competition  is  a  mistaken  notion.  From  the  data  available  it  is  difficult 
to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  French 
Mmister.  Free  trade  tendencies  undoubtedly  prevailed,  yet  at  that  time 
very  moderate  duties  might  have  been  regarded  as  sufficient  to  foster  the 
industries  of  France.  A  duty  at  that  time,  which  amounted  to  lo  or  15 
per  cent  upon  coarser  articles,  afforded  much  more  protection  than  would 
arise  from  a  similar  duty  to-day,  because  of  the  reduced  rates  and  greater 
means  of  transportation  which  now  prevail.  At  that  time  all  of  the  inland 
districts  of  France  and  the  Continent  were  supplied  at  a  great  expense  by 
transportation  in  wagons,  over  poor  roads.  Without  taking  these  things 
into  consideration  the  duties  agreed  upon  appear  less  protective  than 
the  French  officials  at  that  time  had  reason  to  assume  they  would  be 
The  protective  policy  inaugurated  by  Colbert  was  fully  vindicated  in  the 
development  of  industries  which  took  place  during  the  following  century 
Although  not  as  great  as  it  otherwise  would  have  been  had  the  political 
and  industrial  conditions  of  the  country  been  more  favorable,  yet  by  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  products  of  many  of  their  industries 
had  become  famous  for  their  excellence  and  fineness.  The  woolens  from 
the  manufactories  of  Louvieres,  Abbeville  and  Sedan,  were  regarded  as 
the  finest  in  the  world.  The  broadcloths  were  concededly  softer  and  of  more 
vivid  and  captivating  color  than  those  made  in  England,  although  the 
English  manufacturer  had  early  become  famed  for  the  excellence  of  this 
class  of  goods.  In  the  manufacturing  of  silks  they  had  reached  a  degree 
of  cheapness,  as  well  as  taste  in  design  and  beauty,  which  for  the  time  was 
very  remarkable.      The  manufacture  of  linens,  millinery  goods,  glass  for 


PROTECTION  IX  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


mirrors,  china  ware,  furniture,  and  many  articles  of  luxur>-,  had  steadily- 
increased  until  the  country  became  noted  for  the  production  of  a  superior 
quality  of  this  class  of  goods. 

The  treaty  was  entered  upon  by  England  after  a  most  careful  investiga- 
tion of  the  industries  of  France  and  the  effect  which  the  new  regulations 
would  have  on  British  manufactures.  The  correspondence  and  negotia- 
tions, the  result  of  Mr.  Eden's  observations  and  inquiries,  were  all  made 
known,  and  the  interests  of  British  manufacturers  were  consulted  through- 
out. The  reverse,  however,  was  true  in  France.  "The  negotiations," 
says  Yeats,  ' '  had  been  offensive  to  the  French  manufacturers,  whose 
voice  was  not  heard  in  the  matter  until,  in  answer  to  their  inquiries,  they 
were  told  it  was  too  late,  for  the  treaty  was  signed.  Rouen,  Rheims, 
Rennes  and  Lyons  were  bitter  in  the  expression  of  their  discontent." 
The  only  producers  in  France  who  were  at  all  pleased  with  the  treaty 
were  the  wine  merchants  of  Bordeaux.  The  Physiocrats,  of  course, 
who  had  been  misled  by  some  economic  notions,  gave  it  their  approval, 
yet  their  influence  was  so  insignificant  and  they  were  so  few  in  number 
that  as  soon  as  its  effect  became  apparent  on  the  manufactures  of  the 
country  it  was  abandoned.  Bismarck,  in  a  passage  already  quoted,  stated 
to  the  German  Reichstag,  in  1879,  that  "commercial  treaties,  it  is  true, 
are  under  certain  circumstances  favorable  to  foreign  trade;  but  whenever  a 
treaty  is  concluded  it  is  a  question  of  Qui  trompe-t-on-ici  ?  Who  is  taken  in  ? 
As  a  rule  one  of  the  parties  is,  but  only  after  a  number  of  years  is  it  known 
which  one."  In  this  instance  it  took  only  five  years  to  demonstrate  that 
France  had  made  a  poor  bargain,  that  for  the  privilege  o'f  sending  a  few 
luxuries  into  England  on  more  liberal  terms,  which  they  were  likely  to 
continue  to  sell  without  the  treaty,  because  there  was  an  actual  demand 
for  them  there,  their  home  market  must  be  flooded  with  the  cheaper  wares 
of  England  which  would  make  it  difficult,  if  not  impos.sible,  for  them  to 
extend  their  industrial  system  to  the  production  of  a  greater  variety  of 
commodities  at  home,  and  hence  lose  the  profitable  employment  and  accu- 
mulation of  capital,  and  the  opportunity  which  would  be  given  to  the  em- 
ployment of  labor  within  the  borders  of  their  own  country.  We  have  the 
opinion  of  an  eminent  French  authority,  M.  St.  Ferrol,  upon  this  fact 
that  England  was  decidedly  the  gainer  by  the  treaty: 

The  fatal  treaty  signed  with  England  on  the  twenty-sixth  of  September,  1786, 
abolished  the  prohibitions  which  applied  to  the  products  of  this  kingdom  and  her 
colonies.  In  con.sequence  of  some  reductions  of  the  duties  on  our  wines,  vinegars, 
olive  oil  and  beer,  we  had  the  imprudence  to  authorize  the  admission  of  a  great  number 
of  manufactured  articles,  on  paying  a  duty  of  from  10  to  15  per  cent.  Hosiery,  woven 
cloths  and  woolens,  articles  of  dress,  porcelain,  earthenware,  potterj'  and  glass,  were, 
in  virtue  of  this  treaty,  admitted  among  us,  subject  only  to  a  duty  of  12  per  cent. 
It  is  true  that  the  treaty  established  a  reciprocity  of  duties;  but  this  reciprocity 
vanished  before  the  superiority  already  obtained  by  the  manufactures  of  that  king- 
dom. 


From  these  facts  it  is  apparent  that  free  trade  writers  in  attempting 
to  show  that  the  free  trade  tendencies  which  arose  in  England  and  France, 
immediately  after  the  publication  of  the  ' '  Wealth  of  Nations, ' '  and 
the  writings  of  the  French  economists  dictated  this  treaty,  are  not  sup- 
ported by  the  facts  so  far  as  they  relate  to  England.  On  the  part  of  Eng- 
land it  was  a  shrewd  business  transaction  to  advance  her  trade  by  driving 
a  sharp  bargain.  Mr.  Macgregor  says  that  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Eden  in 
negotiating  the  treaty  were  regarded  as  "  a  masterpiece  of  skill. ' '  The 
results  which  followed  in  France  very  quickly  demonstrated  the  folly  of 
those  who  had  been  influenced  by  the  teachings  of  the  French  economists. 

In  1791  the  treaty  was  revoked  b}^  France,  and  the  second  general 
tariff  law  of  the  country  was  enacted.  It  aboUshed  internal  customs  and 
embodied  the  following  provisions: 

1.  To  exclude,  by  absolute  prohibition,  certain  foreign  productions 
and  manufactures. 

2.  To  change  the  prohibition  of  certain  articles  into  the  permission 
of  entry  by  paying  a  duty  not  exceeding  twenty  shillings. 

These  bases,  says  Mr.  Macgregor,  were  drawn  up  by  the  then  first  clerk  of 
the  customs  of  Lyons,  and  adopted  in  March,  1791,  as  follows: 

1.  Total  exemption  from  entrance  duties  on  alimentary  articles  and  on  materials 
required  for  manufacture . 

2.  Progressive  duties  on  certain  merchandi.se. 

3.  Highest  duties  not  to  exceed  25  per  cent  on  objects  of  luxury  or  fantasy. 

4.  Absolute  prohibition  of  manufactures  which  compete  with  ours. 

5.  Finally,  10  per  cent  duty  on  all  spices. 

This  tariff  law  exchrded  gold  and  silver,  worked  on  thread,  twisted 
and  hemp  thread,  tobacco,  glass,  and  a  few  other  articles.  In  March, 
1793,  all  commercial  treaties  existing  with  those  countries  which  were 
then  at  war  with  France,  were  annulled  and  foreign  vessels  were  excluded 
from  participation  in  the  coasting  trade  of  France.  Such  were  the  regula- 
tions existing  during  the  early  part  of  the  administration  of  Napoleon. 
What  is  known  as  the  Continental  System  of  Bonaparte  was  inaugurated 
in  1802,  and  continued  until  his  downfall  at  the  battle  of  Waterloo.  The 
Continental  policy  involved  the  exclusion  of  Great  Britain  from  all  trade 
with  Continental  ports.  The  Berlin  decree  issued  in  1806  forbade  all 
commercial  intercourse  with  Great  Britain,  and  declared  the  British  Isles 
in  a  state  of  blockade.  All  British  subjects  found  in  any  country  over 
which  France  then  claimed  jurisdiction,  were  ordered  to  be  seized.  This 
decree  was  met  by  the  British  Government  by  what  is  known  as  the 
"Order  in  Council,"  made  in  1807,  which  prohibited  all  trade  with 
countries  over  which  France  claimed  jurisdiction.  Yeats  says  on  this 
subject  : 

Napoleon  retaliated  by  the  still  sterner  decree  of  Milan,  which  reduced  his  Con- 
tinental System  to  a  code.    The  ports  of  Europe  for  several  years  presented  the  strange 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


pectacle  of  not  daring  to  admit  English  vessels  for  fear  of  Napoleon's  decrees,  and 
as  little  daring  to  let  their  own  vessels  leave  their  moorings  for  dread  of  the  British 
cruisers.  The  mercantile  fleet  of  France  was  captured,  and  her  navy  defeated.  With 
an  assertion  of  power  which  he  could  no  longer  enforce,  Napoleon  required  neutrals 
to  carry  a  French  license  to  trade.  England  in  reply  seized  the  French  colonies, 
effectively  blockaded  France,  and  declared  prizes  all  neutral  vessels  carrying  French 
papers.  While  England  ruled  the  sea,  Napoleon's  policy  was  futile  and  his  ordi- 
nances were  useless.  Navigation  ceased  wherever  he  could  enforce  compliance  with 
his  will.  France,  which  had  been  the  purveyor  of  sugar  and  coffee  for  European 
consmnption,  was  compelled  to  look  to  other  states  for  her  own  supply,  and  at  last 
the  enactments  other  ruler  cut  her  off  from  every  source.  Meanwhile  the  profits  of 
a  vast  smuggling  traflSc  which  had  arisen  all  over  Europe,  together  with  the  growing 
trade  between  England  and  the  United  States,  enabled  English  commerce  to  endure 
this  trial  with  little  loss;  in  the  end,  indeed,  with  positive  gain.  Except  the  English, 
there  were  soon  no  merchantmen  in  Europe,  and  England  was  called  upon  to  act  as 
universal  agent  and  carrier.  British  fabrics  and  colonial  produce  were  so  desirable 
that  they  were  still  purveyed,  although  surreptitiously  and  at  greatly  enhanced  cost. 
Thus,  by  unintentional  and  strange  concurrence  of  events,  the  world's  commerce  came 
into  possession  of  England,  after  a  short  effort  of  the  Americans  and  the  neutral  nations 
conjointly  to  share  it.' 

It  has  been  pointed  out  in  previous  chapters  that  through  the  de- 
struction of  the  merchant  vessels  of  all  Continental  countries  during  this 
war,  that  England  gained  a  complete  monopoly  of  the  carrying  trade  of 
the  world,  and  obtained  a  commercial  and  maritime  pre-eminence  which 
she  has  since  held  and  which  other  nations  have  not  been  able 
to  take  from  her.  The  efforts  to  exclude  British  goods  from  the  Conti- 
nent gave  to  the  manufacturers  of  France  a  monopoly  of  their  home 
market  and  enabled  them  to  extend  their  sales  in  other  Continental 
countries.  Hence,  while  France  lost  her  merchant  vessels  and  was 
driven  from  the  sea,  her  industries,  notwithstanding  the  long  military 
struggle  in  which  the  country  was  engaged,  made  considerable  progress. 
Yet  the  calamities  of  the  war  were  so  great  and  taxation  so  burdensome, 
that  the  manufacturers  of  the  country  shared  in  a  great  degree  in  the 
inevitable  consequences.  When  the  war  was  brought  to  a  close, 
upon  the  defeat  of  Napoleon  at  Waterloo,  the  allied  armies  of  800,000 
troops  occupied  French  soil  and  lived  on  the  country  for  several  months. 
Besides,  the  burdens  of  the  war  which  fell  upon  France  by  the  terms  of 
peace,  imposed  a  great  hardship  on  the  people.  An  army  of  150,000 
men  was  to  occupy  the  country  and  be  supported  for  a  period  not  less  than 
three  and  not  more  than  five  years;  France  was  also  compelled  to  pay  to 
the  allied  powers  $140,000,000  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  war  and 
indemnities  for  spoliations  inflicted  on  them  during  the  Revolution 
which  amounted  to  $147,000,000.  Besides  these  sums,  100,000,- 
000  francs  were  to  be  paid  to  smaller  powers  for  the  expenses  of  war. 
The  total  sum  imposed  on  the  French  people,  besides  the  expense  of 

>  Recent  and  Kxisting  Commerce,  p.  59 


FRANCE. 


maintaining  the  army  of  occupation,  was  $307,000,000.  This  was  the 
situation  of  France  in  18 16,  after  having  passed  through,  from  1789  to 
18 15,  the  most  gigantic  wars  and  the  most  blood j^  revoUition  of  modern 
times  ;  yet,  still,  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the  despotism  which 
had  prevailed,  the  sj'Stem  of  feudalism,  the  corrupt  and  venal  nobles, 
royalists  and  priesthood  had  all  been  swept  awaj',  the  people  were  in 
a  better  situation  than  ever  before  to  enter  upon  a  career  of  national  life 
and  industrial  prosperity;  hence,  when  we  attempt  to  measure  the  growth 
of  the  wealth  and  industries  of  the  country,  and  compare  its  progress 
and  present  condition  with  that  of  other  nations  during  recent  years,  it 
is  proper  to  begin  with  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars.  Although  at 
this  time  France  was  a  powerful  nation  and  great  industrial  progress 
had  been  made,  yet  so  many  causes  had  intervened  to  retard  the  accumu- 
lation of  wealth  and  the  establishment  of  industries,  trade  and  commerce, 
that  their  disasters  should  be  taken  into  account  in  measuring  the  wonder- 
ful progress  which  has  been  made  and  the  vast  accumulation  of  wealth 
which  has  taken  place  during  the  past  eighty  years. 

During  the  period  extending  from  18 15  to  i860,  although  the  French 
people  were  divided  on  the  question  of  a  form  of  government  and  the 
struggle  between  kingcraft  and  republicanism  raged  with  the  varying 
fortunes  of  both  parties,  until  the  formation  of  the  Republic  in  1870; 
yet  there  was  one  question  upon  which  the  French  people  were  united 
during  this  period.  The  necessity  of  developing  all  their  varied  resources 
and  industries  pertaining  to  agriculture,  manufacturing,  mining,  trade 
and  commerce  was  fully  recognized  and  protection  to  native  industries 
remained  the  settled  and  definite  policy  of  the  people.  Before  the  army  of 
occupation  had  left  the  country  in  18 16  a  new  tariff  law  was  enacted, 
known  as  the  tariff  of  the  Restoration.  It  maintained  all  the  prohibi- 
tions embraced  within  the  law  of  March  i,  1793.  The  act  of  1791  was 
continued  in  force  with  provisions  which  increased  the  duties  which  had 
been  too  lightlj-  imposed  on  many  articles  of  that  year.  This  law,  on 
account  of  the  exigencies  of  the  government,  embodied  revenue  features 
which  formed  no  part  of  the  definite  principles  of  protection  in  times  of 
peace.  The  large  war  debt  required  the  taxation  of  many  articles  of 
raw  materials  and  necessaries  not  produced  in  France,  which  otherwise 
would  have  been  admitted  free.  The  burdens  of  taxation  which  fell  so 
heavily  upon  the  people  during  the  whole  period,  prevented  to  a  great 
extent  the  establi.shment  of  a  policy  more  consistent  with  the  principles 
of  protection.  Again  the  prejudices  of  the  war  which  had  intensified  the 
hatred  against  Great  Britain,  the  lo.ss  of  colonies  and  merchant  marine 
naturally  continued  a  system  of  commercial  warfare  and  retaliation  which 
was  injurious  to  the  trade  of  the  country,  and  showed  a  lack  of  knowledge 
of  sound  economic  principles.  But  this  soon  passed  away,  and  in  the 
thirties  great  improvements  were  made  in  the  tariff  regulations. 


Tariff  leg- 
from  iSis 


PliOrECTION  IN  COXTINEXTAL  AND  OTHER  COUXTBIES 


B\-  the  revisions  which  were  made  in  1836  prohibitions  were  removed 
which  had  hitherto  existed  upon  the  imports  of  certain  manufactured 
and  partly  manufactured  articles  and  adequate  protection  was  continued 
through  duties  upon  buttons;  chains;  cables;  cashmere  shawls;  coppei 
ire  twisted  with  silk,  gilt  or  silvered ;  brass  wire;  cotton  lace;  clock  works; 
tin  dishes;  India  handkerchiefs,  clothing  and  other  stuffs.  Protective 
duties  were  also  substituted  for  prohibitions  on  chromates  of  lead,  chro- 
mates  of  potash  and  chromates  of  iron;  extract  of  quinine;  iron  in  bars 
(called  rails),  in  angular  form,  old  and  broken;  cotton  yarns,  No.  143  and 
upwards;  thread  of  sheep's  wool,  twisted  not  dyed;  prepared  skins,  large 
and  tanned;  Russia  leather  for  bookbinding  and  some  others,  while  the 
import  of  cotton  yarns  was  prohibited.  Duties  were  greatly  reduced  on 
the  following  articles  required  for  manufacturing:  Coal;  various  kinds  of 
wood  used  in  the  manufacture  of  furniture,  such  as  mahogany,  ebony,  etc. ; 
also  on  dye  woods;  rubber;  white  lead;  cobalt;  cochineal;  copper;  elephant's 
teeth;  tin;  iron  cast  in  pigs  and  drawn  in  bars  of  all  dimensions;  oil  seeds, 
oil  indigo;  wool,  raw  or  washed;  lac  dye;  flax,  not  hackled,  and  tow, 
hackled  and  combed;  machines  (locomotives)  for  railroads;  nickel 
(metallic)  bristles;  lead,  mineral  of;  silk  raw  and  reel;  tallow,  raw;  sul- 
phur, mineral  of  zinc  and  many  others.  Duties  were  also  reduced  on  the 
following  articles  of  food  :  Cinnamon,  cloves,  nutmegs,  pimeto,  pepper 
and  tea.  Duties  were  reduced  on  the  following  articles  of  manufacture: 
Linens,  woven  of  flax  or  hemp;  table  linens,  unbleached;  damask,  bleached 
and  damask,  and  sealing  wax. 

By  the  acts  of  1826,  1836  and  1841  duties  were  increased  on  the  follow- 
ing articles  of  manufacture:  Steel,  cast  in  bars  or  steel  wire;  spermaceti 
produce  of  foreign  fisheries;  raw,  pressed  or  refined  sperm  candles;  copper, 
pure  or  mixed;  hops;  wool,  washed  and  dyed;  quills  for  writing;  marble, 
unwrought;  lead  pencils;  cordage;  linen  yarns  and  .some  others.  Cotton 
manufactures  were  prohibited  to  be  imported  excepting  the  following, 
which  were  subjected  to  duties  :  Nankeens  from  India  and  from  other 
parts,  cotton  lace,  cotton  thread  of  No.  143  and  above,  cotton  twisted,  all 
other  cotton  thread  without  distinction  of  number  or  quality,  and  coverlets. 
As  to  woolen  manufactures,  woven  cloth  dyed,  or  undycd,  dressed  or  un- 
dressed; hosiery  of  all  kinds,  flannels  of  all  kinds  and  woolen  yarns  were 
prohibited  to  be  imported  except  the  following,  which  were  subjected  to 
protective  duties:  Blankets  and  bed  covers,  carpets  in  knots  of  wool  and 
linen  thread,  carpets  of  woolen  yarns,  tufted  or  in  round  points,  the  under 
side  of  which  represent  canvas  or  thread,  carpets,  woolen,  worsted  wares 
and  buttons  to  be  used  in  France  with  other  material.  The  importation  of 
manufactures  of  iron  and  hardware  of  all  kinds  was  prohibited  except  the 
following,  which  were  subjected  to  protective  duties  :  Steam  engines, 
machinery,  mechanical  instruments  for  the  use  of  maimfactures  and  loco- 
motive   engines    for    railways,    tools,   copper   boilers,    etc.,    agricultural 


implements,  ship  anchors  of  certain  sizes,  spurs  and  pins,  coffee  mills  and  a 
few  other  articles  of  minor  importance.  Nearly  all  chemical  products  were 
prohibited.  Manufactured  goods,  with  the  exception  of  silks,  machines 
and  tools  and  a  few  articles  partly  manufactured  were,  as  a  general  rule, 
prohibited.  Protection  to  agriculture  was  also  made  a  definite  purpose 
in  the  legislation  of  1816,  1826,  1836  and  1841.  In  1826  duties  were  in- 
creased on  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  fowls,  hops,  wool;  butcher's  meat,  fresh, 
salt  pork  and  other  kinds;  vegetables,  dry  or  ground;  and  on  all  grains, 
cereals  and  farm  produce. 

To  encourage  .ship-building,  commerce  and  industries,  bounties  were 
paid  to  those  who  engaged  in  the  fisheries  and  for  building  vessels.  Pre- 
miums were  also  paid  on  the  exportation  of  woolen  manufactures,  cotton 
manufactures,  hardware  and  other  commodities  of  the  production  of 
French  factories.  Under  the  vigorous  protective  policy  entered  upon,  the 
expenses  of  the  government  necessitated  the  preservation  of  some  revenue 
features  which  would  not  otherwise  have  been  continued,  j^et,  as  a  whole, 
it  was  in  every  way  favorable  to  the  restoration  of  the  trade  and  commerce 
and  the  expansion  and  development  of  the  country. 

A  brief  .statement  of  the  expan.sion  of  the  industries  of  the  country 
during  this  period  will  show  that  most  marvelous  progress  was  made. 
One  of  the  principal  benefits  derived  from  the  French  Revolution  was 
the  change  which  took  place  in  the  tenure  of  land.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that  a  large  portion  of  the  area,  and  in  fact  the  best  part, 
was  owned  by  the  church,  the  crown  and  the  nobles.  The  confisca- 
tion of  property  held  by  the  church,  the  king  and  the  nobility  brought 
about  a  division  of  land  and  gave  the  people  an  opportunity  to  purchase 
and  own  their  own  farms. 

By  a  law  of  France  it  was  provided  that  an  estate  should  be 
equally  divided  among  the  heirs.  This  cut  the  whole  country  up  into 
many  small  holdings,  which  has  made  the  French  peasantry  the  most 
contented,  happy  and  peaceful  rural  population  in  Europe.  It  was  not 
only  a  regard  for  the  interests  of  the  large  wine  producers,  the  owners  of 
vineyards  or  the  cultivators  of  the  mulberry  tree  that  induced  protection 
to  agriculture,  but  the  welfare  of  the  peasantry,  the  whole  people,  the 
idea  of  making  France  prosperous  and  self-sustaining,  by  fully  developing 
all  the  varied  resources  of  the  country,  formed  the  basis  of  this  policy.  A 
committee  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  reported  in  1832  that. 

If  we  admitted  the  food  and  raiment  and  metals  and  colonial  and  other  objects 
which  strangers  would  bring  into  our  ports,  we  might  probably  gain  some  hundreds 
of  millions  :  should  we  be  the  richer  in  consequence  ?  for  the  riches  of  a  Slate  are  in 
the  elements  of  labor,  and  when  labor  fails  to  find  employment  miser}-  is  reproduced. 
And  it  is  not  only  a  question  of  comfort,  but  one  of  existence, /or  zf  wheat  ?vere  intro- 
duced without  duty  from  the  Baltic  or  Black  Sea,  our  maritime  shores  wo^t'i  ie?nain 
uncultivated,  and  the  effect  of  a  ruinous  competition  zvould  affect,  more  and  viore, 
nearly  the  zvhote  of  our  agricultural  population. 


rROTEcrinx  in  continental  and  other  countries. 


Notwithstanding  the  effort  on  the  part  of  the  English  people  to  break 
down  the  system  of  protection  in  France  by  appeals  to  the  agricultural 
interests,  the  French  people  have  remained  united  on  the  subject.  The 
arguments  which  were  intended  to  array  one  class  of  producers  against 
another,  utterly  failed.  They  attempted  to  prejudice  the  agriculturists 
against  the  manufacturers,  by  showing  that  through  protection  to  the 
French  manufacturers  the  farmers  were  paying  much  larger  prices  for  iron 
and  agricultural  implements  than  they  would  be  compelled  to  pay  under 
a  system  permitting  free  imports  from  England. 

The  concern  which  the  free  traders  manifested  for  the  agriculturists  of 
France  is  most  interesting  when  we  remember  that  at  the  same  time  they 
were  making  calculations  to  convince  the  farmers  that  they  should  destroy 
the  iron  furnaces  and  agricultural  implement  manufactories,  they  were 
also  compiling  statistics  to  convince  the  manufacturers  that  they  were 
being  robbed  and  subjected  to  heavy  burdens  to  support  the  sugar  and 
other  agricultural  industries  of  the  country. 

"Since  1848,"  sa}'s  Mulhall  (1888),  "no  less  than  9,000,000  acres 
of  waste  land  have  been  reclaimed."  The  protection  and  encouragement 
given  to  the  French  farmers  have  not  only  directly  benefited  the  peasantry, 
but  have  added  greatly  to  the  wealth  of  the  nation.  Nearly  ever}-  foot 
of  soil  is  cultivated  like  a  garden.  The  sandy  deserts,  the  crest  of  moun- 
tains, and  even  rocks  have  been  transformed  into  vineyards  and  made  to 
yield  a  revenue,  and  give  sustenance  and  support  to  the  people.  Besides, 
the  division  which  has  been  maintained  by  keeping  so  many  people  on 
the  soil  has  prevented  the  overcrowding  of  cities  and  the  struggle  for 
places  among  laborers  in  industrial  centres,  which  would  have  occurred 
had  France  pursued  the  English  policy  of  opening  her  ports  to  the  free 
admission  of  the  farm  produce  of  other  countries,  and  ruined  and 
impoverished  her  agriculturists;  but  instead  of  that  her  rural  population 
was  given  an  opportunity  to  produce  and  sell  in  French  markets  vege- 
tables, poultry,  dairy  products,  and  everything  which  would  grow  on 
French  soil,  or  could  be  produced  or  raised  by  French  farmers.  Not  only 
were  the  wheat  growers  protected,  but  the  milling  interests  of  the  country 
were  guarded  against  foreign  competition,  so  that  nearly  all  the  grain 
which  is  imported  is  ground  into  flour  and  meal  in  French  mills.  The 
milling  interests  of  the  country  are  therefore  verj-  extensive.  The  steady 
development  of  agriculture  which  immediately  followed  the  adoption  of 
vigorous  protection  to  agriculture  has  been  most  fully  vindicated,  as  will 
further  appear  from  the  enormous  wealth  of  the  country,  as  shown  at  the 
close  of  this  chapter. 

During  the  Revolution,  the  city  of  Lyons,  the  principal  seat  of  the 
silk  industry,  was  taken  by  the  Republican  forces,  and  many  of  its 
inhabitants  massacred.  The  di.sturbance  was  so  great  that  the  industry 
was  practically  ruined   and   received  a  .set-back.     One  characteristic  of 


Napoleon,  which  perhaps  above  all  others  won  for  him  the  applause  and 
adherence  of  the  French  people,  was  his  devotion  to  their  interests  and 
his  regard  for  their  welfare  manifested  in  so  many  waj's.  He  recognized 
ths  importance  of  all  the  industries  of  the  country,  and  especially  of  the 
silk  industry,  which  he  attempted  to  revive  by  requiring  the  costumes  of 
all  French  officials  to  be  made  from  domestic  silk.  The  invention  of  the 
jacquard  loom  also  contributed  largely  to  the  rapid  expansion  of  the  silk 
trade  of  Lyons  after  the  Revolution.  The  industry,  however,  became 
verj'  prosperous,  as  is  disclosed  by  the  official  statistics  of  its  growth 
between  1820  and  1835,  as  given  by  Mr.  Macgregor  in  his  "Dictionary' 
of  Commercial  Statistics." 

The  quantity  of  raw  silk  spun  increased  from  308,159  kilograms  in 
1815  to  876,016  kilograms  in  1835.  The  exports  of  the  manufactures 
of  silk  from  France  to  England,  the  United  States,  and  all  other  coun- 
tries, grew  from  99,000,000  francs  in  value  in  1822  to  165,000,000 
francs  in  1847;  181,000,000  francs  in  1849;  194,000,000  francs  in  1866. 
By  1845  the  manufacturing  industry  gave  employment  to  200,000  persons, 
who  produced  a  product  worth  over  $40,000,000.  While  France  was  a 
producer  of  raw  silk,  yet  its  manufacture  was  established  in  the  country, 
and  grew  and  expanded  under  the  fostering  care  of  protection. 

In  the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods  the  progress  was  less  rapid  during 
the  period  in  question.  It  .should  be  remembered  that  the  industry'  was 
not  established  in  England  until  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
that  its  rapid  expansion  there  was  due  largely  to  the  inventive  genius  of 
the  English  people  who  brought  out  the  great  textile  machinery  which  so 
increased  the  facilities  for  its  production.  Prohibiting  the  export  of  this 
machinery,  England  acquired  a  start  and  an  advantage  in  its  production, 
many  years  in  advance  of  the  French  and  other  Continental  countries. 
With  the  superior  facilities  thus  possessed  by  Great  Britain  her  manufac- 
turers were  able,  had  it  been  permitted,  to  prevent  the  establishment  of 
the  industry  in  France.  The  French  people  wisely  put  up  protective  bar- 
riers, employed  British  artisans  and  set  themselves  about  acquiring  the 
mastery  of  the  business.  Cotton  weaving  and  spinning  mills  were  erected 
and  great  progress  was  made.  Three  million  five  hundred  thousand  spindles 
were  employed  in  the  various  districts  of  the  country.  The  substitution  of 
power  for  hand  loom,  the  building  of  large  factories  fitted  with  machinery 
and  modern  appliances  which  was  taking  place  could  not  have  been  estab- 
lished under  free  trade. 

Although  the  woolen  industry  was  early  established  through  the  influ- 
ence of  Colbert  and  the  French  people  had  reached  great  proficiency  in 
dyeing  and  weaving  by  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  in  order  to  keep 
pace  with  other  nations  her  hand  looms  must  be  thrown  aside  and  mod- 
ern machinery  and  appliances  substituted.  By  181 5  woolen  factories  had 
been  established  in  all  parts  of  France,  and  when  the  use  of  machinery 


PROTECTION  IK  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


was  added  to  their  superior  art  of  dyeing  and  their  great  ingenuity  in  its 
manufacture,  a  successful  prosecution  of  the  trade  was  assured.  Complete 
statistics  during  the  years  from  1816  to  i860  cannot  be  found.  Those 
that  do  touch  upon  the  growth  of  French  industries  during  this  period  are 
meagre  and  fragmentarj'.  Enough,  however,  are  available  to  show  a 
most  substantial  advance.  The  following  facts  and  figures  are  taken  from 
Macgregor's  "Dictionary  of  Commercial  Statistics."  The  changes  in 
the  foreign  trade  of  France  were  as  follows  : 

Foreign  Trade  of  France. 

1820-1861.  Exports.  Imports. 

1820 I  90,983,616  $  72,627,4/3 

1829,       123,270,678  121,563,727 

Annual  average  1827-1836 139,600,000  133,400,000 

Annual  average  1837-1S46 204,800,000  217.600,000 

Annual  average  1847-1S56, 334,400,000  300,600,000 

1S61, 385,274,200  488,470,400 

As  can  be  seen  the  exports  exceeded  the  imports  for  nearly  the  whole 
of  this  period,  while  in  a  single  year  after  the  English  treaty  went  into 
operation  the  imports  exceeded  the  exports  by  over  $100,000,000. 

From  1787  to  1829  the  excess  of  imports  over  exports  of  bullion 
amounted  to  $345,476,917  and  j-et  $182,082,172  was  gained  in  the  eight 
years  from  1822  to  1829,  as  shown  by  the  following  table  : 

Movement  of  Bullion. 
1822-1S29. 

Exports.  Imports. 

1S22, 111,295,795  fo7,i92,255 

1823 21,299,621  40,106,086 

1824 16,638,368  48,856,522 

1825 26,929,613  50,284,814 

1826 34,929,630  34,409,879 

1827 7,970,664  37.409.879 

182S, 5,714,315  21,620,215 

1829 11,714,916  49,695,044 

Total,     1136,492,922      I319.574.694 

136,492,922 

Excess  of  imports  over  exports $183,081,772 

The  excess  of  specie  imported  in  1839  was  $19,506,825. 
Changes  in   the  production  of  coal,   wheat  and  potatoes  were  as 
follows : 

Coal  Production. 


1789,     250,000 

1H30 1,800,000 

i,S5[ 4,648,000 

i86oi        8,309,622 


Wheat  Production. 


184s,   I52,CX»,00O 

1S50 237,093,769 

1876,   271,330,122 


17S9,      5,000,000 

1815,      55,000,000 

1S48 275,000,000 

1850,      157,230,000 

1S75 ,. 411,818,044 

Statement  of  Production  of  Iron  in  France,  from  1833  To  1840,  Inclusive. 
In  Metric  Quintals— (220.46  lbs.). 


1S33, 
1834, 
1S35, 
1S36, 
1837, 
183S, 
1839, 


1  i 

22,273,000  2,253,000 

25,083,000  '  2,691,000 

27,898,000  2,948,000 

31,587,000  3,084,000 

33,760,000  i  3,317,000 

32,899,000  [  3,478,000 

32,164,000  3,502,000 


1,339,000 
1,772,000 
2,095,000 
2, 106,000 
2,246,000 
2,242,000 
2,318,000 


1828, 
1834. 
1839, 


Malleable 
quintals. 


393  !  2,209,177  j  1,295  1,513.878 
569  12,690,636!  1,687  '  1. 771. 638 
3,502,0001  2,022  j  2,318,000 


The  production,  importation  and  consumption  of  coal  from  1825  to 
1838  also  shows  great  gains  in  this  period. 


14.914.C 
i8,627,c 
25,064,0 
3i.'33.c 


5,069,000 
6,309,000 
7,669,000 
11,636,000 


i9,983,< 
24,936,< 
32,733,< 
42,769,( 


Wool  Imported  for  Consumption. 

1820 11,670,000 

1830, 2,574,400 

1840, 5,997,400 

J       ^  Metric  quintal— 220.46  lbs. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Statement  of  Value  of  Woolbn  Yarns  and  Woolen  Cloths  Exported. 


Cloth. 

i,547,4oo 


1S20 f  129,400 

1830, 213,000 

1840, 399,200  12,220,000 

The  increase  in  importations  of  cotton  for  consumption  from  18 12  to 
iSigamounted  to  11,000,000 kilograms  (2.2046  pounds),  and  from  1S19  to 
1835  the  increase  amounted  to  22,000,000  kilograms. 

The  value  of  cotton  manufactures  in  1835  amounted  to  $120,000,000. 
Between  1816  and  1835  the  quantity  of  cottons  manufactured  nearly- 
doubled  itself. 

Raw  Cotton  Imported  for  Consumption. 

1820, $  7,365,000 

1S30 10,352,200 

1840, 18,801,200 

Value  of  Cotton  Tissues  Exported. 

1820, f  5,824,000 

1830 11,123,000 

1S40 21,404,800 


Value  of  Cotton  Manufactures  Exported. 


1833, 
1S40, 


Silk  and  Silk  Manufactures. 


$12,267,270 
21,700,000 


1820, 
1835, 


No.  of  mul- 
grown. 


9.631-674 
14,879,404 


Quantity  of  Hemp  and  Flax  Imported  for  Consumption. 

Hemp.  Flax. 

Kilograms.  Kilograms. 

(2.2046  lbs.)  (2.2046  lbs.) 

1825,    14,292,157  $   234,049 

1S37, 6,284,443  1,102,768 

Linen  Yarns  Imported. 

Kilograms. 

(2.2046  lbs.) 

1825, I    983,031 

1835 2,126,652 

1839, 6,817,421 

Value  of  Land. 


1821, 
1851, 


I  7,902,800,000 
16,748,800,000 


FRANCE. 


Railways. 

Miles, 

1830, 32 

1848 1,373 

1855. 3.434 

1861 ....    6,212 

Exportation  of  French  Cutlhry. 

1833, I245.306 

i835> 303,330 

Value  of  Oil  Cakes  Exported. 

1831. 1132,793 

1S37 228,550 

1840, 471,557 

Beet  Root  Sugar  Production. 

Kilograms. 

1828,     58  establishments  producing 2,685,000 

1830,     89  "  "  6,000,000 

1837,  543  "  "  36,000,000 

1839,  560  "  "  40,000,000 

Deposits  in  Savings  Banks. 

Francs. 

1834 • 37,015,492 

1839 ■         171,057,904 

The  industrial  development  of  France  from  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic 
wars  until  i860  is  without  a  parallel  in  any  Continental  country.  The 
manufacturing,  which  hitherto  had  been  confined  to  silks,  fine  woolens, 
tapestries,  gobelins  and  more  costly  and  elegant  articles,  was  now  extended 
to  everj'  branch  of  production.  The  cotton  industry  was  developed,  the 
woolen  industry  made  rapid  strides.  Iron  and  coal  mines  were  opened 
and  the  metal  industry  extended  to  all  manner  of  tools  and  implements  in 
which  iron  is  used.  Fabrics  from  flax  and  hemp  were  also  made  in  large 
quantities.  It  was  not  only  a  period  of  great  expansion  and  growth,  but 
a  transformation  had  taken  place  under  which  old  methods  were  discarded 
and  machinery  and  all  modern  appliances  were  brought  into  use.  It  was 
during  this  period  that  the  peasantry  gained  a  decisive  foothold  and  most 
marvelous  improvements  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  country  took  place.  The  produc- 
tion of  sugar  became  one  of  the  chief  and  most  valuable  industries.  But 
this  is  not  all.  Under  a  favorable  balance  of  trade  the  country  ob- 
tained an  ample  supply  of  gold  and  silver.  Although  the  ease  with 
which  the  French  people  met  the  German  indemnity  at  the  close  of  the 
Franco-Prussian  war  astonished  the  world,  yet  the  means  by  which  this 
accumulation  of  treasure  was  accomplished  is  still  more  important  and 
worthy  of  much  more  comment  and  consideration.  The  vast  accumulation 
of  treasure  had  been  going  on  for  years  and  was  due  to  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection.    Even  after  the  five  milliards  were  paid  to  Germany,  France  still 


PKOrKCTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


had,  and  now  has,  a  greater  accumulation  of  precious  metals  in  the  banks 
and  circulating  among  her  people,  than  any  other  nation. 

The  Republic  had  been  overtlirown,  the  monarchy  restored  and  from 
1852  Louis  Napoleon  had  sat  on  the  throne.  During  the  ten  years  pre- 
ceding i860  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  as.sociates  had  been  attempting  by 
every  means  possible  to  induce  France  to  abandon  protection  and  adopt 
free  trade.  Louis  Napoleon  and  Chevalier  entertained  liberal  views  upon 
the  question.  While  the  French  people  were  so  devoted  to  the  policy  of 
protection  that  a  suggestion  of  free  trade  would  have  made  the  adminis- 
tration unpopular,  yet  by  a  piece  of  cuuning  diplomacy,  under  the  guise 
of  a  commercial  treaty,  Richard  Cobden  and  Louis  Napoleon  sought  to 
accomplish  in  part  that  which  could  not  be  obtained  in  open  daylight.  In 
i860,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  a  commercial  treaty  was  entered 
into  between  England  and  France,  under  which  French  silks  and  manufac- 
tures were  admitted  into  England  free  of  duty  and  French  wines  under 
reduced  duties.  While  on  the  other  hand  France  removed  all  prohibitions 
from  imports  and  substituted  duties  ranging  from  20  to  30  per  cent  on 
competing  manufactures. 

The  writer  will  not  undertake  to  say  that  either  party  was  the 
gainer  by  this  treaty.  The  question  who  was  cheated  has  remained 
until  this  day  a  subject  of  controversy  which,  perhaps,  will  never  be  settled 
satisfactorily.  Measured  bj'  the  growth  of  exports  and  imports  of  the  two 
countries,  an  increased  trade  is  shown.  That  the  shipping  interests,  brokers 
and  commission  men  of  England  gained  more  than  those  of  France  because 
of  the  former  nation's  pre-eminence  in  the  carrying  trade  is  undoubtedly 
true.  Yet  the  free  imports  from  France,  as  has  been  proven,  resulted  in 
the  annihilation  of  the  silk  industry  of  England  and  greatly  crippled  many 
other  manufacturing  interests.  On  the  other  hand  France  bought  more 
largely  of  England  of  those  foreign  products  and  raw  materials  of  which, 
at  that  time,  English  merchants  were  the  distributors.  So  far  as  French 
industries  were  concerned,  it  intensified  competition  in  France  in  many 
branches,  especially  in  chemicals,  paper,  coarser  woolens,  cottons  and 
machinery  in  which  England  was  superior.  The  imports  into  France 
of  these  manufactures  from  England,  although  they  swelled  the  foreign 
trade,  diminished  the  home  trade  by  displacing  domestic  productions 
and  therefore  it  cannot  be  said  that  a  benefit  arose  to  the  French 
people.  The  small  increase  in  the  exports  from  England  to  France 
did  not  compensate  her  for  the  destruction  of  her  silk  industry  or  for  the 
dimini.shed  production  which  such  imports  occasioned  in  other  pursuits. 
The  duties  of  20  or  30  per  cent,  which  France  maintained,  were  all  that 
saved  a  vast  number  of  her  industries  from  destruction.  The  treaty 
was  binding  on  the  two  countries  until  187 1,  and  at  that  date 
was  renewed  for  another  ten  years.  But  as  soon  as  the  voice  of  the 
people  was  heard  in  the  halls  of  legislation,  under  the  new  Republic,  the 


renewal  of  protectiou  and  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty,  became  issnes  in 
the  politics  of  the  country. 

In  1882  the  French  Government  refused  to  renew  the  treat3'  and  a 
more  vigorous  protective  policy  was  restored.  On  March  28,  1885,  an 
act  was  passed  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  raising  the  duties  on  all 
farm  products.  The  act  was  but  an  extension  of  the  system  of  tariff 
revisions  which  was  begun  in  1876  and  completed  in  1881.  .  All  ad 
valorem  duties  were  changed  to  specific.  In  1 890  the  question  of  further 
extension  of  protective  duties  came  up  for  disctission,  when  it  was  appar- 
ent that  the  protectionist  sentiment  was  overwhelmingly  in  the  ascend- 
ency. In  1891,  upon  proposals  submitted  by  the  government,  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  passed  a  new  tariff  law.  Raw  materials  were  admitted  free 
of  duty,  and  to  compensate  the  growers  of  flax  and  the  breeders  of  .silk 
worms  bounties  were  given  by  the  government,  that  these  industries 
might  be  maintained  and  prosecuted  with  more  vigor.  The  internal  tax 
on  sugar  was  reduced.  Increased  protection  was  extended  to  agriculture 
and  to  those  manufactures  which  were  being  depressed  by  foreign  compe- 
tition. The  treaties  with  Belgium,  Spain,  Switzerland,  Sweden,  Norway, 
Portugal  and  the  Netherlands,  which  would  not  expire  until  1892,  were 
revoked.  The  bill  provided  for  two  rates  of  duties,  or  permitted  the 
import  of  goods  under  the  lowest  duties  named  in  the  schedule  from  those 
countries  which  v/ould  extend  reciprocal  benefits  on  French  goods. 
It  was  under  tliis  provision,  undoubtedly  incorporated  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Reciprocity  clause  of  the  McKinley  bill,  that  the  Harrison 
administration  made  a  commercial  treaty  with  France,  under  which 
American  pork  and  farm  produce  were  received  into  the  country 
under  the  lowest  duties  fixed,  and  in  turn,  sugar,  molasses  and  skins 
from  France  and  her  colonies  were  admitted  into  the  United  States  free 
of  duty. 

Before  examining  the  agricultural  and  manufacturing  resources  of 
modern  France,  the  reader's  attention  is  called  to  the  speeches  of  M. 
Thiers,  then  a  Deputy  from  Paris,  in  the  Assembly,  January,  1870. 
They  are  so  pregnant  with  practical  wisdom,  so  full  of  contempt  for  the 
fallacious  reasoning  found  across  the  English  Channel,  so  prolific  in  in- 
structive observations  and  conclusions,  that  extracts  of  considerable 
length  are  here  given. 

On  January  22,  1870,  M.  Thiers  addressed  the  Assembly  as  fol- 
lows: 

Every  nation  has  three  affairs  which  should  be  the  object  of  its  ardent  and 
constant  solicitude:  liberty  first,  its  greatness  next,  and  finally  its  material  pros- 
perity. Liberty,  which  consists  not  merely  in  the  right  of  the  nation  to  criticise 
its  government,  but  in  the  right  of  governing  itself  by  its  own  hands,  and  con- 
formably to  its  own  ideas;  greatness,  which  does  not  consist  in  subjecting  its 
neighbors  by  brute  force,   but  in    exercising  over   them   so   much    influence  that  no 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


question  shall  be  resolved  in  the  world  against  its  interests  and  security;  prosperity, 
finallj',  which  consists  in  drawing  from  its  own  soil,  and  from  the  genius  of  its 
inhabitants,  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  well-being.  And  do  not  think  that 
this  anxiety  for  the  prosperity  of  the  country  has  anything  in  common  with  that 
passion  for  material  interests  which  the  highest  minds  despise.  There  is  no  work 
of  higher  morality  than  to  diminish  the  sum  of  the  evils,  which  weigh  upon  man, 
even  in  the  most  civilized  societies.  To  make  man  less  unhappy, — that  is,  to 
make  hipi  better,  — it  is  to  make  him  more  just  toward  his  government,  to  his 
fellow-beings,  toward  Providence  itself.  We  have  before  us  a  noble  task ;  we  shall 
succeed,  I  hope,  in  accomplishing  it.  It  is  to  give  to  the  country  liberty,  without 
disturbance,  without  violence,  without  revolution.  The  work  of  establishing  pros- 
perity where  it  is  wanting  is  not  less  grand  or  less  worthy  of  your  thoughts.  The 
government  has  thought,  for  a  time,  that  it  could  arrogate,  for  itself  alone,  the 
right  of  deciding  upon  the  economical  system  of  the  country.  I  do  not  wish 
to  recriminate  as  to  the  past;  this  is  not  the  time.  We  must,  on  the  contrary, 
forget  the  past,  or  remember  the  past  only  to  derive  from  it  instruction.  Our  task 
is  to  fecundate  the  present  and  the  future.  It  was  nevertheless  a  strange  pretension, 
that  of  thinking  that  the  government  could,  of  itself  alone,  decide  upon  the  eco- 
nomical-system of  the  country.  I  can  understand  that  the  government — when  it  is 
composed  of  the  most  enlightened  men  of  the  country — might  believe  that  it  coulil 
be  a  better  diplomat,  a  better  warrior,  than  tlie  mass  of  the  nation,  but  a  better 
merchant,  a  better  manufacturer,  a  better  agriculturist,  when  the  nation  is  composed 
of  merchants,  manufacturers,  and  agriculturists,  is  an  unsustainable  pretension. 
I  have  exhausted  myself  in  this  study,  to  which  I  have  brought  the  greatest  material 
disinterestedness,  and  that  moral  disinterestedness,  which  results  from  the  absence 
of  bias  for  any  system.  I  shall  proceed  directly  to  the  end  which  we  have  in  view. 
In  these  debates  some  call  themselves  protectionists,  others  free  traders,  and  we 
have  even  heard  the  term  compensationists.  I  accept  whatever  term  you  will.  It 
is  the  thing  only  which  I  have  in  view.  It  is  asked,  Shall  we, place  around  France 
a  sort  of  Chinese  wall?  No:  our  object  is  the  national  labor,  which  we  wish  to 
preserve  in  the  country ;  to  give  birth  to  it  where  it  does  not  exist;  but,  above  all, 
to  preserve  it  where  it  does  exist.  Do  we  demand,  for  this,  prohibitive  duties? 
No!     Duties  sufficiently   protective?      Not  even  that. 

Hi.s  idea  of  the  proper  functions  of  government  reveals  a  statesman 
like  grasp  of  the  subject.  National  labor  must  be  protected  and  main- 
tained ;  new  channels  for  its  employment  must  be  created.  To  show  that 
the  dtities  then  existing  were  not  high  enough  to  afford  ample  protection 
to  all  of  the  industries  of  France,  he  proceeded  as  follows: 

I  can  understand  that  we  might  hesitate  before  undertaking  to  develop  certain 
industries  iu  a  country;  but  what  I  cannot  understand  is,  that,  when  they  are 
already  developed,  we  should  leave  them  to  perish.  We  are  told  that  we  would 
have  a  hot-hou.se  industry.  What,  then,  are  the  nations  which  have  sought  l>. 
develop  among  themselves  a  national  labor?  They  are  the  nations  which  are  int..; 
ligent  and  free.  When  the  foreigner  brings  them  a  product,  after  they  have  fouii'; 
it  serviceable,  they  desire  to  imitate  it.  The  nations  which  do  not  have  tliis 
desire  are  the  indolent  nations  of  the  East;  intelligent  and  free  nations  seek  to 
appropriate  for  themselves  the  products  brought  to  tliem  by  foreign  nation.-. 
We  arc  constantly  referred  to  England.  Here  is  an  example  which  this  great 
and  intelligent   nation   has  given  us.     In  the   fourteenth,  fifteenth   and    sixteenth 


FRANCE. 

centuries,  the  people  of  the  Low  Countries  had  become  enriched  by  the  beautiful 
products  of  their  woolen  manufactures ;  England,  who  had  received  these  products, 
as  soon  as  she  commenced  to  wake  up  to  her  position,  said  to  herself,  "It  is  out  of 
my  wools  that  these  tissues  are  fabricated.  I  have  the  hands,  the  intelligence,  the 
raw  material;  and  shall  the  labor  of  foreigners  provide  me  with  my  necessities?" 
She  kept  her  wools;  she  put  herself  to  work ;  and  then  commenced  the  great  pros- 
perity of  England.  Was  there  any  barbarism  in  that?  I  am  asked,  did  not  Eng- 
land soon  after  renounce  this  system?  I  answer  by  the  question,  did  not  England, 
onl3-  a  few  years  ago,  in  order  to  procure  for  herself  the  beautiful  industry  of  flax 
and  linens,  cover  herself  with  protective  tariffs,  forbid  the  exportation  of  machines, 
and  even  give  premiums  to  the  peasants  of  Ireland  to  encourage  the  production 
of  flax? 

I  wish  it  were  in  my  power  to  conduct  you  through  the  history  of  civilization. 
I  could  show  you  that  there  has  been  no  intelligent  nation,  which  has  not  held  it, 
not  only  for  its  profits,  but  for  its  honor,  to  create  for  itself  the  productions  of  other 
nations,  whenever  nature  did  not  oppose  it.  I  need  not  recall  Colbert,  creating  our 
marine,  our  woolen  industrj-,  our  silk  industry,  our  lace  manufactures,  our  glass 
industry,  and  for  this  purpose,  giving,  according  to  the  language  of  the  times,  the 
money  of  the  king,  the  lands  of  the  king,  and  even  nobility  itself,  which  was  at 
the  king's  disposal.  This  is  old-time  history,  you  say.  I  will  lead  you  to  the 
youngest  and  freest  natioji.  You  shall  see  that  the  procedures  of  two  centuries  ago 
are  still  their  procedures.  An  English  member  of  parliament,  SirWentworth  Dilke, 
who  has  traveled  over  all  the  English  possessions,  has  recently  published  a  remark- 
able book,  in  which  you  will  find  a  curious  picture  of  the  vast  Britannic»Empire. 
I  would  have  those  who  think  themselves  at  the  head  of  the  science  of  political 
economy,  and  who  scoff  at  the  protective  system,  read  this  book.  Thej-  would  see 
that  it  is  not  America  alone  which  covers  herself  with  protective  tariffs  to  develop 
her  own  labor;  the  English  colonies,  Canada  and  Australia  have  recourse  to  the 
most  energetic  tariffs  against  their  own  metropolis  to  establish  industries  upon  their 
own  soil.  India  herself,  which  has  a  colony  of  500,000  English  established  upon  her 
territory,  makes  tariffs,  that  its  cotton  may  be  manufactured  by  herself.  And  Sir 
Wentworth  Dilke  repeats  the  words  spiritedly  uttered  by  America,  of  the  West: 
"An  agricultural  people  should  become  a  manufacturing  people.  We  want  some- 
thing besides  the  seaboard  capitals.  New  York  and  Boston.  We  want  to  sustain 
the  brilliant  cities  of  the  interior,  such  as  Cincinnati  and  Chicago;  and  to  do  this 
we  must  exclude,  by  means  of  protection,  the  productions  of  foreign  nations." 
And  nevertheless  Sir  Wentworth  Dilke  is  a  freetrader  in  England;  but  he  compre- 
hends that  what  suits  one  country  does  not  suit  all,  and  t]ia.\.free  trade  is  not  the  lazv 
of  the  world.  But  I  lay  aside  theory,  to  return  to  it  again,  and  proceed  to  the 
facts  which  touch  us  so  nearly. 

Upon  the  importance  and  necessity  of  building  up  home  industries 
and  the  direct  benefits  which  thereby  accrue  to  man,  he  said : 

Since  all  the  industries  have  man  for  their  object  and  instrument,  I  shall  take 
as  my  guiding  thread  in  this  debate  the  order  of  the  necessities  of  man.  It  is 
necessary  that  man  should  clothe  himself;  that  he  should  procure  for  himself 
a  covering;  that  he  .should  feed  himself;  and  finally  put  himself  in  com- 
munication with  the  world.  I  shall  examine  these  according  to  their  logical 
order — the  textile  industries,  those  of  construction  and  iron,  agriculture,  and  the 
merchant  marine.  Cotton  is  the  grand  textile  of  modern  times.  It  was  not  unknown 
to  the  ancients.  Egypt  shows  us  cotton  stuffs  dating  four  or  five  thousand  years  ago. 
What  is  the  importance  of  the  industry  of   cotton  among  us?     We  work  up  600,000 


rROTECTION  IN  CONTIXENl'AL  AXD  OTHER  COUXTRIES. 

700,000  bales,  which  represent  in  weight  90,000,000  of  kilograms,  and  in  value 
300,000,000  of  francs.  No  industry  has  superior  or  equal  importance.  What  is  its 
peril?  It  is  exposed  to  a  double  rivalry,  that  of  the  English  and  of  the  Swiss. 
The  English  find  the  material  in  part  upon  their  own  possessions  and  part 
abroad.  They  have  created  among  themselves  an  immense  market,  and  it  is  not 
possible  that  we  can  seriously  speak  of  making  Havre  the  equivalent  of  England. 
The  English  have  over  us  immense  advantages:  great  capital,  raw  material,  an 
enormous  commerce,  machines  in  the  greatest  number,  coal  at  the  cheapest  price, 
and  finally,  which  is  a  capital  point,  have  the  cheapness  which  results  from  an 
immense  production.  Whilst  we  move  6,000,000  spindles,  they  move  34,000,000; 
we  work  up  600,000  or  700,000  bales  of  cotton,  they  work  up  3,000,000.  Hence  the 
cheapness  which  creates  the  grand  production  by  lowering  the  general  expenses. 
It  is  difficult  to  establish  the  true  prices  of  production,  I  know;  but  for 
myself,  I  am  sure  that  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  between  England 
and  France  is  not  less  than  15  or  20  per  cent. 

In  reviewing  the  historj'  of  the  woolen  industry  and  the  conditions 
under  which  it  was  carried  on  in  the  two  countries,  he  showed  that  the 
fine  cloths  of  France  had  nothing  to  fear  from  Briti.sh  competition,  but 
as  to  shoddy  and  coarser  stuffs,  he  said : 

The  most  hideous  and  tainted  rags  are  disinfected,  carded,  transformed  into  a 
kind  of  oakum,  then  into  yarn  without  solidity,  which  is  made  into  tissues,  which, 
instead  0/  ten  or  twelve  francs,  cost  four  francs  a  yard.  Whilst  we  formerly  made  for 
the  people  excellent  cloths,  entirely  of  wool,  and  which  could  not  be  worn  out,  we 
give  them  at  present  these  detestable  stuffs ;  and  this  for  the  profits  of  foreigners. 

This  experience  of  France  overthrows  one  of  the  principal  economic 
dogmas  held  to  by  free  traders.  The  contention  of  the  inexperienced 
and  theoretical  writers  that  excessive  and  intense  competition  causes 
the  introduction  of  new  methods,  the  application  of  greater  skill  and 
the  production  of  a  better  quality  of  goods,  is  wholly  fallacious.  Such 
industrial  warfare  forces  the  rivals  to  adopt  all  methods  of  cheapening 
the  quality  as  well  as  the  price  in  order  to  hold  markets  and  sustain 
themselves.  Glutted  ijiarkets,  excessive  production,  intense  rivalry,  have 
the  same  influence  on  the  industries  of  the  nation,  as  over-population  has 
on  the  moral  and  physical  condition  of  society.     He  continued: 

In  certain  countries  where  they  have  pa.sturage  analogous  to  that  of  England, 
and  the  culture  of  the  large-sized  animals  has  succeeded,  the  culture  of  the  English 
sheep,  which  produce  much  mutton  and  wool,  has  also  succeeded ;  but  upon  four- 
fifths  of  the  territory,  where  the  soil  is  stony,  and  only  the  fine  grasses  abound, 
the  fine  sheep  alone  can  convert  this  grass  into  flesh  and  manure.  Kut  it  is  threat- 
ened that  this  French  sheep  must  disappear  from  the  soil.  [Cries  from  the  Chamber, 
"It  is  true."]  The  wools  of  Australia  do  not  possess  all  the  qualities  of  the  French 
wool.  They  are  not  so  silky,  so  fine,  so  supple,  and,  above  all,  so  tenacious ;  but 
they  are  very  excellent,  and  they  are  able  to  make  a  very  formidable  competition, 
because  the  pastures  in  Australia  are  imtnense,  the  internal  duties  are  small,  and 
because  the  facility  of  transportation  permits  these  wools  to  be  landed  upon  our 
shores  at  very  low  prices. 

Our   ovine   population   has  gone   down    from    40,000,000    to    30,000,000.     Our 


production  of   wool  is  65,000,000  kilogr 


jport  90,CKXj,ooo.      Australi 


FliANCE. 


already    gives  165,000,000,  and   she  will    give   300,000,000    if   they  are  wanted.      La 
Plata  can  produce  as  much  more. 

In  this  situation  how  can  the  French  resist  the  foreign  competition  ?  The  agri- 
cullural  industry  of  trance  cannot  dispense  with  sheep.  The  facts  which  I  have 
given  ought  to  inspire  you  with  the  most  serious  concern. 

On  the  twenty -sixth  of  January,  he  said : 

A  young  and  very  intelligent  traveler,  M.  de  Beaumont,  has  given  some  curious 
details  about  Australia.  The  wool -growers  who  commenced  with  150,000  francs 
make  as  much  as  500,000  francs  in  a  year.  The  reason  is  that  the  land  costs  noth- 
ing ;  there  are  no  taxes ;  and  a  man  on  horseback  can  take  care  of  1000  sheep. 
Australia  will  soon  export  200,000,000  or  300,000,000  of  kilograms.  La  Plata  and 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  will  soon  reach  the  same  number. 

I  do  not  wish  to  prevent  your  resorting  to  these  countries.  Protection  as  well 
as  free  trade  follows  the  progress  of  science.  But  with  an  indigenous  production 
of  65,000,000  of  kilograms,  in  presence  of  a  foreign  exportation  which  may  reach 
600, 000, 000,  .can  you  be  tranquil? 

We  are  told,  make  mutton.  Have  you  ever  seen  sheep  producing  mutton  and 
no  wool?  You  say  to  agricultixre,  grow  sheep  which  produce  the  most  muttou  and, 
the  most  wool.  This  unhappy  agriculture,  which  you  accuse  of  being  all  routine 
has  tried  the  English  sheep  in  the  north  of  France. 

It  does  not  think  much  of  it.  Is  the  essay  practicable  everywhere?  Ask  our 
agriculturists.  They  will  tell  you  that  in  the  centre,  the  east,  the  south,  the  rustic 
sheep,  the  old  French  sheep,  is  the  only  one  possible.  There  are  no  districts  hav- 
ing pastures  which  grow  the  mutton  sheep,  and  for  four-fifths  of  the  territory  the 
production  of  65,000,000  of  kilograms  remains,  in  the  face  of  a  foreign  production 
which  can  reach  up  to  600,000,000  of  kilograms.  If  this  situation  does  not  impress 
you,  it  is  because  you  are  optimists;  and  this  no  one  has  a  right  to  be  except  for 
his  own  affairs.  When  it  concerns  the  fortune  of  the  community,  optimism  is 
nothing  but  blind  improvidence. 

Upon  the  growth  of  foreign  trade  under  the  treatj^  with  England, 
he  showed  that  prior  to  i860  French  commerce  had  increased  at  the 
rate  of  115  per  cent,  but  that  since  i860  it  had  been  reduced  to  65  per 
cent. 

But  it  is  asked  how  is  it  possible  that  French  industry,  which  had  shown  such 
prodigies  at  the  Exposition,  could  not  compete  with  all  the  world?  It  is  true  that 
the  French  industry  has  a  superiority;  but  in  what?  In  articles  of  luxury?  Yes: 
our  workmen  are  very  skillful ;  if  they  have  not  the  patience  of  the  English 
workmen,  they  are  no  less  the  most  intelligent  in  Europe.  Our  silk  products  are 
superior  to  all ;  and  also  our  printed  cottons  and  stuffs.  The  English,  the  Swiss 
and  the  Germans  borrow  our  models,  and  this  makes  a  considerable  saving.  Our 
designs  are  above  all  comparison ;  our  machines  are  superior  to  the  English 
machines;  our  irons,  at  least,  before  the  ruin  of  the  charcoal  iron  forges,  were 
excellent ;  our  grains  are,  at  least,  as  good  as  those  of  Aragon  and  Naples.  But  in 
one  thing  we  are  wanting—  cheapness  of  production :  we  have  perfection,  but  we 
do  not  have  the  cheapness.  Moreover,  we  do  not  have  the  immense  outlets  of  Eng- 
land; we  have  not  India  and  Australia;  we  have  not  been  able  to  take  in  all  the 
markets  of  the  world,  the  ascendency  given  by  cheapness  carried  to  such  a  point  as 
to  discourage  all  rivals.     We  produce   1,000,000  tons   of    iron;    England    produces 


PROTECTION  IK  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


10,000,000  tons;  how  can  we  produce  at  the  same  price?  To  desire  us  to  enter  into 
rivalry  with  England  in  cheapness,  is  to  mistake  the  genius  of  France  and  the 
truth  of  our  situation.  And  now  shall  France  complain  that  she  cannot  supply  so 
many  nations  as  England?  No.  She  must  understand  that  all  nations  cannot  be 
great  in  the  same  way.  England  is  the  nation  of  cheap  production,  and  she  must 
seek  after  cheap  production.  This  is  her  career.  France  must  seek  after  perfection, 
and  the  elevation  of  her  products.  How  has  she  made  her  fortune  in  the  world, 
and  reached  this  ascending  force,  of  which  I  have  so  often  spoken?  Is  it  by 
ntering  into  competition  with  England  in  the  low  price  of  products?  No,  gentle- 
men. It  is  by  selling  her  silks  and  printed  'goods  which  have  no  rivals  in  the 
world.  It  is  by  her  merinos,  it  is  by  her  wines — not  the  common  wines,  but  the 
delicate  wines,  so  superior  that  we  made  our  fortune  out  of  them  before  the 
treaties.  Since  the  new  system,  the  quality  of  products  of  all  industries 
has  been  lowered  in  France.  Have  our  workmen  become  less  skillful?  No.  But 
we  have  sought  to  rival  our  neighbors  in  cheapness.  This  is  the  secret  of  the 
situation. 

But  this  situation  is  enviable  compared  with  that  of  the  great  and  admirable 
nation  which  we  call  England.  God  forbid  that  I  should  utter  one  injurious  word 
against  a  nation  which  has  been  an  inviolable  asylum  for  the  proscribed  of  all  revo- 
lutions! against  that  nation  which  has  gwen  us  the  most  beautiful  model  of  human 
liberty,  and  where  the  government,  kept  at  an  equal  distance  from  the  passions  of 
the  low  and  the  passions  of  the  high,  is  to  my  eyes  the  ideal  of  governments.  But 
I  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  it  has  in  its  industrial  greatness  that  which  is  not  so 
solid  as  the  situation  of  France.  France  has  her  consumers  within  itself.  Its 
market  does  not  depend  upon  a  cannon-shot  fired  in  Europe.  And  for  exporta- 
tions  she  has  her  beautiful  products.  England,  on  the  contrary,  has  an  artificial 
existence.  She  depends  upon  the  doings  of  the  United  .States;  upon  the  doings  of 
her  colonies,  which  already  oppose  her  with  hostile  tariffs.  May  not  the  day  come 
when  its  immense  production  will  find  no  purchasers?  She  produces  ten  times  as 
much  as  her  consumption !  This  little  island,  in  the  words  of  Fox,  embraces  the 
world.  True;  but  when  she  embraces  the  world,  she  is  vulnerable  everj'where. 
Such  was  the  situation  of  Holland  in  the  seventeenth  century,  which  had 
realized  a  prodigy  almost  as  marvelous.  What  was  needed  to  make  Holland, 
which  gave  laws  to  France,  descend  from  this  lofty  place?  It  needed  only  fifty 
years.  It  needed  only  a  Navigation  Act  in  England;  it  needed  only  a  Colbert  in 
France.  God  forbid  that  I  should  predict  for  England  such  a  destiny  ;  but  I  repeat  it, 
her  existence,  which  depends  upon  consumers,  which  she  seeks  everywhere  without 
herself,  is  less  solid  than  that  of  France,  which  has  her  consumers  in  her  own 
bosom.  I  ardently  desire  that  England  should  continue  her  career;  but  I 
do  not  envy  that  career  for  our  own  country.  That  our  country  should  have  her 
career  as  brilliant,  depends  upon  your  wisdom.  It  is  for  you  to  choose  between 
doctrines  puerile  and  full  of  illusions,  and  the  doctrines  of  your  old  national  good 

On  the  t\veiity-.sixth  of  January  he  resumed  the  discussion  of  the 
economic  question,  and  said  before  the  Assembly: 

You  say  that  no  protection  is  due  to  an  industry  which  demands  an  exaggerated 
protection,  and  an  eternal  protection.  That  is  your  principle;  that  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  free  trade.  Let  us  apply  it  to  France,  and  come  to  the  bottom  of  the 
doctrine.  Cotton  has  been  protected  ever  since  it  came  into  Europe.  It  has  been 
protected  by  prohibition.  I  repeal  that  I  condemn  prohibition;  but  I  observe  that 
cotton  has  been  protected   since  the  counnencenient  of   the   eighteenth   century,  a 


protection  of  a  huudred  years.  But  you  have  declared  that  you  would  not  have  an 
eternal  protection.  You  must  theu  cease  to  protect  cotton,  or  your  maxim  is  false. 
Wool  has  been  protected  since  the  time  of  Colbert,  and  it  still  demands  to  be 
protected.  Must  we,  then,  abandon  our  woolens  to  the  competition  of  Germans, 
Belgians  and  English?  The  linen  industry  has  been  protected  since  all  time.  It 
ought  then,  since  it  has  need  of  permanent  protection,  to  be  given  up  like  the 
others.  Iron  has  been  protected  since  a  very  ancient  period,  and  still  cannot  get  along 
without  protection.  It  deserves  it  no  longer,  since  you  admit  only  temporary  pro- 
tection. Our  agriculture  has  been  always  protected.  It  still  cannot  produce  grain  at 
the  same  price  as  the  Crimea,  and  the  plains  of  Western  America.  It  deserves  to  be  no 
longer  protected.  What,  then,  shall  France  do?  If  you  dare  maintain  that  she 
can  make  cotton  cloth  at  the  price  of  England,  wooleus  at  the  price  of  Germany 
and  Belgium,  if  our  metallurgy  can  contend  with  that  of  England,  and  our  agri- 
culture afford  grain  as  cheap  as  the  Crimea  and  America,  then  I  will  acknowledge 
that  there  is  no  longer  need  of  protection  ;  and  thus,  all  the  world  being  ruined,  there 
will  result  universal  prosperity.  I  ask  again,  can  our  agriculture  produce  at  the 
price  of  the  Crimea?  [A  member,  "Yes."]  My  adversary  proves  that  he  has  .studied 
the  question  more  in  books  than  in  practice.  You  can  never  prove  to  me  that 
France,  with  the  imposts  which  weigh  upon  her  agriculture,  can  produce  grain  as 
cheaply  as  the  Crimea.  What,  then,  shall  we  do?  Shall  we  renounce  all  our 
industries,  and  make  only  wine?  Recall  the  lessons  of  histor)'?  If  there  is  a  country 
which  could  content  itself  with  its  wines,  it  is  Portugal.  What  has  she  become  ? 
If  France  should  renounce  her  industries,  her  cottons,  her  woolens,  her  irons,  would 
not  the  world  say  that  she  had  sunk  into  idiocy? 

The  fallacy  that  protective  tariffs  build  up  monopolies  was  exposed 
in  the  following  very  able  treatment  of  the  question : 

It  is  urged  that  all  the  protections  accorded  to  industry  constitute  monopolies, 
and  that,  to  enrich  a  few  monopolies,  we  burden  the  whole  country.  It  is  true 
there  is  a  monopoly ;  but  it  is  not  in  France,  it  is  abroad.  I  desire  to  say  that  this 
little  monopoly,  which  you  accord  to  French  industry,  destroys  the  monopoly  of 
foreign  industry.  When  England  and  France  alone  worked  up  cotton,  as  you 
know,  what  was  the  price  of  a  kilogram  of  cotton  yarn  which  is  now  worth  three 
francs?  It  was  worth  twenty-seven  francs.  It  is  true  that  this  was  at  the  period 
of  our  wars,  and  when  the  raw  material  bore  a  high  price,  but  after  the  peace  the 
price  was  still*as  high  as  fourteen  francs.  It  has  gone  down  now  to  three  francs. 
And  here  is  the  reason  why  :  In  proportion  as  the  French  production  was  developed, 
there  was,  in  spite  of  prohibition,  a  sort  of  penetration  between  the  two  markets. 
We  created  a  competition  with  England,  and  thus  the  cotton  fell  to  three  francs. 
What  purpose,  then,  has  the  monopoly  served?  It  has  compelled  the  foreigner  to 
lower  his  prices.  Every  time  that  j-ou  give  a  protection  to  a  national  product,  )'ou 
cause  the  price  of  the  foreign  product  to  be  lowered,  and  you  prevent  monopoly. 
Another  example  more  recent ;  When  the  linen  industrj-  was  destroyed  in 
France  by  the  English  production  by  power,  a  kilogram  of  thread  was  worth  seven 
francs.  We  protected  the  linen  industry-  in  France.  This  protection  permitted 
competition;  and  the  French  product  compelled  the  English  manufacturers  to  lower 
their  prices  to  three  francs  fifty  centimes.  If,  then,  there  is  anything  evident,  it 
is  that  this  pretended  monopoly,  this  sacrifice  of  a  few  centimes,  produces  a  general 
lowering  of  price,  which  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  country.  ...  If  you  are 
not  willing  that  the  French  manufacturers  should  fabricate,  becau.se  you  have  to  pay 
20  per  cent  more  than  in  England,  it  will  end  in  the  English  making  you  pay  100  per 


PRUTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES 


cent  more.  If  England  were  the  only  country  to  produce  certain  objects,  could  j-ou 
have  them  at  the  same  price?  Certainly  not.  It  is  competition,  .sustained  by  a  just 
protection,  which  destroys  foreign  monopoly.  Those  who  speak  of  universal,  unre- 
stricted competition  do  not  comprehend  it.  Do  you  know  what  true  competition 
is?  It  is  that  no  nation  should  ever  suffer  itself  to  make  any  surrender  of  its  native 
industries.  It  is  that  no  one  should  say  that  it  will  no  longer  manufacture  cotton, 
because  it  cannot  produce  as  cheaply  as  another ;  that  no  one  shall  say  that  it  will  no 
longer  fabricate  cloths,  because  it  cannot  fabricate  at  so  good  an  account  as  its 
neighbor;  that  no  one  should  say  that  it  will  not  raise  grain,  under  the  pretext 
that  grain  is  produced  more  dearly  than  in  other  countries.  The  nation  which 
should  reason  thus  would  exhibit  the  reasoning  of  an  idiot.  Do  you  know  what  is 
the  trvie  competition  of  nation  with  nation,  the  universal  competition?  It  is  a 
noble  ambition  on  the  part  of  each  people,  the  noble  emulation  of  producing 
everything  and  even  that  which  it  produces  with  less  advantage  than  other 
people.  This  competition  has,  as  its  result,  the  reduction  of  prices  to  the  lowest 
attainable  standard,  and  throughout  the  entire  world. 

In  1891  France  had  a  population  of  38,343,192  and  an  area  of  204,- 
092  square  miles — equal  to  the  combined  area  of  New  England,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Maryland  and  Virginia,  or  to  that  of  Indiana#Illinois,  Wis- 
consin and  Iowa.  Of  the  inhabitants  a  trifle  more  than  one-half  are 
dependent  on  agriculture,  one-fourth  on  manufactures,  one-tenth  on  com- 
merce, while  the  rest  are  divided  between  transportation  and  the  different 
professions,  leaving  one  million  and  a  half  to  the  civil  and  military  sen-ice 
of  the  country.  In  examining  the  present  condition  of  industrial  life  in 
France  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  has  been  only  about  fifteen  years 
since  she  returned  to  the  policy  of  rigid  protection.  As  most.of  the  statis- 
tics available  must  be  taken  fromthe  returns  of  1890  to  1893  they  should,  as 
far  as  possible,  be  thought  of  in  comparison  with  the  returns  for  1882, 
when  a  revised  and  thoroughly  protective  tariff  law  went  into  operation. 
While  France  is  to-day  the  wealthiest  country  on  earth  considered 
per  capita,  she  also  has  the  greatest  debt,  it  being  nearly  $5,000,000,- 
000  or  $154  per  capita,  as  compared  with  a  debt  of  $15  per  capita  in  the 
United  States.  Nearly  one-half  the  wealth  of  France  is  centred  in  her 
agricultural  interests,  which  represented  in  1889  a  value  of  $19,300,000,- 
000,  or  over  20  per  cent  in  excess  of  the  value  of  farms  in  the  United 
States.  The  total  value  of  the  agricultural  products  in  the  same  year  was 
$2,605,500,000,  which  is  greater  by  $145,000,000  than  the  returns  for  the 
United  States,  though,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  pages  devoted  to  agricul- 
ture in  the  Unitefl  States,  the  amount  as  returned  by  the  census  is  a 
very  low  estimate.  France,  however,  can  show  a  most  favorable  com- 
parison for  the  reasons  that  her  land  is  almost  wholly  productive  and  yields 
a  larger  average  per  acre,  while  prices  of  agricultural  products  are  uni- 
formly higher  than  in  this  country. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  percentage  of  land  under  cultiva 
tion  and  cultivable  in  1889:  ■ 


FRANCE. 


Per  cent  of  Per  cent  of 

Crops.  Etc                                        total  area  total  area 

of  France.  cultivable. 

Cereals, 29.14  31.95 

Meadows,  etc 19.82  21.7 

Fruits,  nuts,  etc., 6.30  6.91 

Potatoes,                2. 82  3.00 

Industrial  plants, .97  1.07 

In  fallow, 6.S9  7.56 

Forests, 17. S9  19.62 

Uncultivated 16.17  8.06 

Total, 10000  100.00 

Of  the  total  ntimber  of  fanners  in  France  in  189 1,  65  per  cent  were 
farming  their  own  land. 

To  show  the  production  of  cereals  for  the  past  fifteen  years,  the  following 
is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  : 

g  Wheat.  Oats  Rye.  Barley.      '  Buckwheat.  'Indian  Corn.|      Meslin. 

a  Bushels.     [     Bushels      '     Bushels.      1     Bushels.      [     Bushels.  Bushels.     1     Bushels. 


1S7S,   273,685,660220,961,997  71,169,539  46,024,537    32,761,346  '32,662,602  17,768,210 

1889,307,379,014241.940,91465,626,937  44,851,352:26,489,362  25,966,513  12,940,945 

1890,331,772,193265,708,885,68,588,109  48,687,185    27,172,439  23,816,856  13,524,629 

1891, !2i9,257, 240 301, 208,155  61,262,861  72,135,602    29,236,991  26,532,620  10,494,592 

1S92,  310,835,719238,342,265'  66,850,803  46,108,414  :  27,724,391  26,604,524  11,625,836 

For  the  purpose  of  showing  the  reader  the  result  of  a  highly  diversi- 
fied system  of  agriculture  in  a  cotintry  but  one-third  larger  than  the  State 
of  California  the  following  statistics  of  quantities  and  values  of  the  princi- 
pal agricultural  products  other  than  cereals  are  given  for  the  year  1 893  as 
compiled  by  the  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture: 


Production. 

Unit. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Bushels 
Tons 

Gals,  of  wine 
Tons 

Pounds 

Tons 
Pounds 
Bushels 

435,099,853 

5.95i,.s68 

7,619-873 

1,339,410,875 

1,943,156 

2,122,168 

1,118,368 

7,291.321 

26,542 

26,109,976 

29,504,209 

17,660 

43,369,726 

336,248 

Sugar  beets, 

Other  beets 

30,247,768 
36,296,228 

Vineyards 

227,522,672 

Alfalfa 

51,181,153 

Sainfoin,      . 

Meadows  and  permanent  pastures,      . 

25.572,724 
180,618,597 

Hemp,  seed 

712,899 
2,983,947 

Flax,  fibre 

Tobacco,      

Colza,       

3,329,124 
2,986,179 

Rapeseed, 

Poppies, 

244,590 
692,797 

1  Including  millet. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Aftermath,      .    .    . 

Sesiiiue 

Hops 

Chestnuts,       .    . 
Walnuts,     .... 

Olives 

Cider  apples,  .  .  . 
Plums  and  prunes, 
Oranges,      .... 

Lemons 

Citrons, 

Millet,      ...    . 
Mulberry  leaves ', 
Cocoons,      .... 

Milk 

Wool 

Honey 

Wax, 


To  this  can  be  added  the  livestock  on  farms  in  1893  as  follows: 


Horses,    .    . 
Mules, 
Asses,  .    .    . 
Milch  cows, 


2,767,648 
215.755 
357,965 

6,005,246 


Other  meat  cattle 6,149,395 

Sheep 20,275,716 

Swine, 5,860,592 

Goats, 1,466,451 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  wine  industry  of  France  is  the  greatest,  or, 
combining  all  cereals  as  one  production,  the  product  of.  the  vineyards 
ranks  second.  Many  vineyards,  are,  however,  being  abandoned  owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  ravages  of  the  phylloxera  have  made  wine-producing  in 
certain  districts  unprofitable. 

In  no  other  part  of  the  world  can  such  diversity  of  rural  production 
be  seen  with  the  exception  of  the  fibres  which  cannot  be  profitably  grown 
to  any  great  extent  and  which  are  admitted  free  of  duty,  but  to  en- 
courage their  production  a  bounty  is  granted,  the  French  agriculturist  is 
advantageously  engaged  in  every  pursuit  made  possible  by  soil  and  climate. 
The  farmers  of  the  United  States  would  do  well  to  study  carefully  the 
value  of  this  diversity  of  occupation.  They  would  learn  a  two-fold  lesson. 
First,  that  the  French  farmer  does  not  believe  in  confining  himself  to  a 
single  product  or  even  a  few,  knowing  full  well  the  value  of  making  every 
acre  yield  what  it  can  to  the  greatest  advantage  and  profit,  and  second, 
that  France  cannot  be  numbered  among  the  markets  of  the  world  so  much 
sought  after  b}'  the  free  traders.  This  will  be  the  more  apparent  when  a 
glance  at  her  manufacturing  resources  is  taken. 

The  total  value  of  manufactures  in  1888,  as  given  by  Mulhall. 
amounted  to  ^485, 000,000,  as  against  /390,ooo,ooo  in  1878.  In  1888 
they  were  divided  as  follows: 


Textiles, 

Hardware, 

Food 

Clothing,      

Leather, 

Sundries,      

The  Statesman's  Year  Book  for 
cerning  the  textile  iudustr>': 


64,000, 
52,000, 
105,000, 


iSgo  gives  the  following  table  con- 


Factories. 

Operatives. 

Spindles. 

Cotton, 

1,000 
1,926 
1,172 

119,000 
115,000 
110,000 

5,100,000 
3,300,000 
1,100,000 

Silk, 

The  production  and  consumption  in  1887  were  as  follows: 


Cottons,   , 
Woolens, 

Silks,    .    . 
Linens,     . 


Production. 

;fl9,ooo,ooo 

46,000,000 

29,000,000 

9,000,000 


The  metallic  industries  may  be  thus  compared: 

Production. 

Steel, /■15, 900, 000 

Iron, 19,500,000 

Copper 3,500,000 

Lead, 3,100,000 


Consumption. 

.^18,000,000 

31,000,000 

22,000,000 

6,000,000 


Consumptions. — 1 

530,oco 

1,300,000 

35,000 


In  1 89 1  France  exported  $376,000,000  worth  of  manufactures,  while 
we  exported  only  $151,102,376  worth,  or  only  two-fifths  as  much. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  value  of  the  principal  articles  of 
merchandise  exported  from  France  to  the  United  States  in  1893: 


Other  articles  of  leather  and 


fur,    .... 

691,000 

Cream  of  tartar. 

430,000 

Hides,  prepared. 

592,000 

Clothing,     .    .    . 

1,234,000 

Paper,  books  and 

engravings. 

598,000 

Pottery  and  glassware. 

542,000 

ARTICLES.  1893. 

Silk — cloth,  ribbon,  etc.,     .    .  $12,499,000 

Wool — cloth,  ribbons,  etc.,     .  4,047,000 
Fancy  goods  of  Parisian  make,     1,588,000 

Skins  and  furs,  raw,         .    .    .  648,000 

Wines 1,451,000 

Cotton  goods, 1,100,000 

Feathers  for  ornament,    .    .    .  962,000 

Gloves  (leather), 3,372,000 


During  the  same  year  our  exports  to  France  amounted  to  $46,619, 138, 
of  which  $30,000,000  was  in  raw  cotton,  oils  and  tobacco.  Not  only  can 
we  not  expect  to  find  an  increased  market  in  France  for  our  products  out- 
side of  cotton  and  tobacco,  but  we  must  reckon  France  as  one  of  our 
greatest  competitors  in  other  markets,  not  excepting  our  own.  The 
French  are  a  courageous  people,  and  may  be  expected  to  hold  their  own 
in  any  industrial  warfare  in  which  they  may  engage.  Their  manufactures 
have  grown  in  the  last  fifty  years  with  wonderful  rapidity,  and  have  kept 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


pace  with  scientific  and  mechanical  progress.  While  in  1840  only  2591 
steam  engines  were  employed  in  manufactures,  in  1884  there  were  34,350 
used,  which  number  it  may  safely  be  assumed  exceeds  40,000  to-day. 

"  This  revolution,"  .say  MM.  Lebon  and  Pelet  in  "  France  As  It  Is," 
' '  which  has  been  simultaneous  with  the  immense  development  of  produc- 
tion and  traffic  has  not,  however,  hindered  wages  from  rising  very  con- 
siderably. Wages  have,  in  fact,  doubled — in  some  cases  more  than 
doubled — since  the  beginning  of  the  centurj-."  One  million  and  a  half 
operatives  are  emploj^ed  in  .making  textiles,  there  being  over  10,000,000 
spindles  at  work. 

In  recent  years  the  export  of  silk  goods  have  been  twice  that  of  cotton 
goods,  while  woolen  exports  have  been  three  times  that  of  cotton.  In  iron 
and  steel  industries  also,  France  has  shown  great  progress.  She  possesses 
rich  iron  deposits,  which  are,  however,  at  a  great  distance  from  the  coal 
mines.     Much  of  her  ore  is,  therefore,  imported. 

Of  the  many  industries  grown  up  in  France,  under  protection,  no 
better  example  can  be  taken  than  the  creation  and  promotion  of  the  sugar 
industry  from  beets.  At  the  beginning  of  the  century  the  price  of  sugar 
rose  to  ninety  cents  per  pound,  owing  to  the  system  established  by  Napoleon, 
excluding  sugar  of  British  colonies  fronj  the  countries  under  his  control 
and  because  of  the  blockade  by  Great  Britain.  Chaptel,  the  Minister  of 
the  Interior,  establi-shed  two  imperial  factories  to  manufacture  the  sugar 
from  the  beet.  Other  parts  of  France  followed  the  example  and  it  was 
found  that  it  could  be  made  at  a  considerably  lower  price  than  that  to 
which  it  had  risen.  The  establishment  of  the  beet  root  indus"try  in  France 
was  due  largely  to  the  efforts  of  the  first  Napoleon.  Although  the  process 
had  been  discovered  by  Margraff,  a  Prussian  chemist,  in  1747,  and  further 
developed  by  another,  named  Achard,  who  received  the  patronage  and 
encouragement  of  Frederick  the  Great,  yet  it  was  not  until  especial 
assistance  was  given  by  Bonaparte  to  its  manufacture  that  the  industrs- 
became  fully  established  in  Europe.  He  gave  encouragement  to  chemists, 
agriculturists  and  manufacturers.  In  1812  Napoleon,  by  decree,  estab- 
lished schools  and  factories  for  the  extraction  of  the  sugar  from  the  beet. 
He  ordei'ed  the  cultivation  of  100,000  acres,  which  it  was  estimated  would 
produce  37,000  tons  of  sugar,  at  that  time  sufficient  for  the  wants  of 
France.  It  was  also  exempted  from  every  tax  for  four  years.  Soon 
afterwards  the  duty  on  foreign  sugar  was  raised.  From  1822  to  1825,  icx) 
factories  produced  5000  tons  annually.  In  1838  a  duty  of  1.6  cents  per 
pound  was  imposed  on  beet  root  sugar,  and  in  1840  it  was  increased  to  2.6 
cents.  In  1843  began  an  annual  increa.se  for  five  years,  and  in  1848  the 
duty  was  equalized  with  that  on  colonial  .sugar.  From  1822  the  increase 
in  production  of  sugar  was  rapid.  In  1828  the  production  was  4404  tons: 
in  1838,  43,000:  in  1S58,  150,000  tons:  in  1875,  462,259,  and  in  1S84, 
1,200,000  tons.      Not    only  vast  quantities   are   exported,   but  the   home 


consumption  is  verj'  great.  It  rose  from  55,000  tons  in  1825  to  200,000  in 
1862,  and  410,000  in  1887,  or  from  four  pounds  to  twenty-three  pounds  per 
inhabitant  between  the  dates  given.  There  is  no  doubt  that  France 
would  have  been  unable  to  meet,  so  promptly,  the  consequences  of  her 
last  war  unaided  by  her  agricultural  wealth  due  to  the  beet  root  factories 
of  the  north  and  the  vineyards  of  the  .south.  A  similar  policy  was  adopted 
in  Russia,  Germany,  Hungary,  Belgium  and  Holland,  namely,  protection 
to  beet  root  sugar  and  with  similar  results.  In  1830  there  were  no  beet 
root  factories  in  Europe  outside  of  France.  In  1876  the  returns  were  as 
follows: 

Tons. 

Germany 346,645 

Russia 245, OCX) 

Hungary 153.922 

Belgium 79,796 

Holland, 30,000 

France 462,259 

Total, 1,317,622 

The  production  of  sugar  from  the  beet  is  only  one  of  the  benefits 
arising  from  the  industrj-  itself.  It  benefits  every  other  branch  of  agri- 
culture, either  directly  or  indirectly.  It  draws  the  surplus  labor  from 
other  channels.  Millions  of  tons  of  coal  are  annually  used  in  the 
conversion  of  beets  into  sugar.  The  greatest  benefit,  however,  is,  of 
course,  to  the  consumer.  In  France  the  price  of  raw  sugar  per  pound 
fell  from  12.6  cents  in  1816  to  5  cents  in  1866. 

In  recent  years  the  production  of  pig  iron  has  a\'eraged  about 
1,700,000  tons,  and  of  manufactured  iron  and  steel  about  1,400,000  tons 

Concerning  the  question  of  wages  in  France,  while  reports  are  to 
some  degree  conflicting,  yet  it  is  certain  that  considerable  advance  has  been 
enjoyed  by  the  French  artisan  in  recent  years.  From  the  reports  of 
various  British  consuls,  as  found  in  the  Second  Report  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission on  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industry,  1885,  the  following  is 
gleaned: 

Bordeaux. 
The  rates  of  wages  both  for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  are  from  20  to  30  per  cent 
higher  than  twenty  years  ago. 

BOULOGNE. 

I  am  informed  that  wages  have  increased  since  1870  from  12  to  15  per  cent,  in 
some  special  cases  more  than  45  per  cent. 

The  hours  of  labor  for  machine  and  engineering  work  are  ten  hours  and  for 
mills,  twelve  hours  per  day. 

A  gentleman  well  able  to  speak  on  the  subject  writes  as  follows  from  Roubaix : 
"In  the  cotton  mills  the  ordinary  hands  receive  now  18  to  20  francs  per  week 
(14s.  sd.  to  i6s. ),  whereas  so  late  as  1876  for  the  same  work  they  could  be  had  at 
34 


J'JiOTECTIUX  IN  VOXriNENTAL  AND  (JTHEE  COUNTRIES. 


14  and  15  francs  [lis.  2d.  and  \2S.  ) ;  the  contreniaitres  and  acquiseurs,  etc.,  that  is, 
the  better  class  workers  in  the  cotton  mills,  receive  now  28,  30  and  35  francs  per 
week  (22 J.  sd.,  245.  and  28^.  ) ;  ten  years  ago  the  wages  were  24  and  25  francs  (igi. 
2d.  and  20.J.  ) ;  rattacheuses,  bobineuses,  etc. ,  girls  who  some  years  since  could  be 
had  at  12  francs  (ii5.   ^d.  ),  now  receive  15  to  18  francs  {12s.   to  14^.  5a'. ). 

"In  mechanics'  shops  the  contrast  is  still  greater,  as  they  are  now  paid  50  to 
60  centimes  per  hour  (^d.  to  dd.  ),  good  hands,  that  ten  years  ago  could  be  had  at 
35  to  40  centimes  (3>^  to  ^d.  ),  the  ordinary  men  in  proportion. 

"What  is  said  above  about  cotton  operatives  may  be  applied  in  general  to  the 
wool,  worsted  and  other  industries,  with  the  exception  of  weavers,  who  have,  I  believe, 
not  enjoyed  the  same  proportionate  rise  in  wages. ' ' 

CHERBOURG. ' 

Wages  are  decidedly  higher  in  every  respect. 


The  rate  of  wages  for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  has  increased  from  25  to  40 
per  cent,  in  most  trades  during  the  last  twenty    years. 

The  following  figures  show  the  rate  of  wages  for  some  of  the  principal  classes 
of  labor: 

Wages  paid  by  the  hour:  Ordinary  laborers,  40  centimes;  bricklayers,  55; 
plasterers,  60;  stonemasons,  65;  joiners,  60;  carpenters,  65;  plumbers,  65;  lock- 
smiths, 65 ;  painters  60 ;  glaziers,  65  ;  gasfitters,  65 ;  whitesmiths,  79 ;  gilders,  90 ; 
decorators,  i  franc. 

Wages  paid  by  the  day :  Engine  fitters,  6  fr.  ;  boiler-makers,  7  fr.  ;  foundry- 
men,  5  fr.  50c.  ;  ship  carpenters,  S  fr.  ;  caulkers,  8  fr.  ;  riggers,  6  fr.  ;  dock  labor- 
ers, 4  fr.  50  c.  to  6  fr. 

The  ordinary  day's  work  is  ten  hours. 

Wages  paid  by  the  week:  Spinning  mills— Overlookers,  45  fr,.;  spinners,  37  fr. 
50  c.  ;  card  grinders,  27  fr.  ;  strippers,  24  fr.  ;  engineers,  36  fr.  ;  stokers,  30  fr.  ; 
self-acting  minders,  8  fr. 

Weaving  mills— Overlookers,  40  fr.  ;  warpers,  23  fr.  ;  slashers,  36  fr.  ;  winders, 
15  fr.  ;  drawers,  34  fr.  ;  weavers,   iS  fr.  to  25  fr. 


The  rate  of  wages  in  this  district  [a)  for  skilled  and  (*)  for  unskilled  labor  is 
materially  above  the  average  of  the  last  twenty  years;  the  quantity  of  work  pro- 
duced per  man  not  being  greater,  the  quality,  perhaps,  somewhat  improved. 

The  specific  (a)  rate  of  wages  for  mechanics  average  6  francs  per  day,  and  (b) 
usual  hours  of  labor  ten  per  day,  overtime  one  and  a  half  hours  per  hour  worked. 
Unskilled  labor  (a)  generally  4  frs.  per  day  of  (6)  twelve  hours'  work. 

MARSEILLES. 

Wages  for  skilled  and  unskilled  labor  employed  in  the  local  oil  and  soap  works 
and  all  other  industries  have  increased  by  about  30  per  cent  within  the  last  twenty 

years. 

NANTES. 

The  rate  of  wages,  taking  into  consideration  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the 
work  given  in  exchange,  is  considerably  in  advance  of  the  average  of  the  last 
twenty  years. 

The  rate  of  wages  at  St.  Nazair  for  both  .skilled  and  unskilled  labor  has 
increased  of  late  years.     In  187S  the  price  paid  to  .■stevedores  for  di.scharging  cargoes 


FRANCE. 


was  I  fr.  a  ton,  and  they  paid  their  laborers  30  c.  an  hour.     At  the 
stevedore  receives  60  centimes  a  ton  and  pays  40  centimes  an  hour 


of  grain,  etc. , 
present  time  ; 
to  his  laborers. 

In  Aujou  from  2  fr.  to  3  fr.  a  day,  according  to  season. 

At  Nazair  the  average  rate  of  wages  paid  per  week  of  sixty  hours   for  different 
trades  is  as  follows  : 


Riveters,  .        ...  27 

Smiths 28 

Fitters 30 

House  carpenters,      24 

Joiners,      30 

Boiler  makers, 27 


Francs. 

Ship  carpenters,  " 30 

Caulkers,      36 

Ship  smiths, 2S 

Riggers 30 

Moulders, 2S 


The  desire  of  the  American  free  trader  to  find  a  foreign  market  for 
our  farmers  instead  of  extending  the  home  market,  and  the  recent  search 
all  over  the  world  by  our  Secretary  of  Agriculture  for  an  outlet  particu- 
larly for  American  grain,  furnish  the  excuse,  if  one  is  needed,  for  revert- 
ing to  the  fact  that  French  markets,  as  well  as  those  already  examined, 
must  be  eliminated  as  markets  for  American  farm  produce.  Referring  for 
a  moment  to  the  question  of  production  and  consumption  of  wheat  alone, 
the  following  facts  are  taken  from  the  report  of  Consul-General  Samuel  E. 
Morss,  dated  Paris,  March  16,  1894.  From  this  report  it  is  learned  that 
the  normal  consumption  of  wheat  in  France  exceeds  340,000,000  bushels 
annually,  while  the  domestic  production  averages  about  300,000,000 
bushels,  leaving  a  deficit  of  only  about  40,000,000  bushels  to  be  supplied 
by  importation  either  of  wheat  or  flour.  And  with  the  increasing  produc- 
tion of  this  staple  in  Russia,  India,  Hungary  and  the  Argentine  Republic, 
the  prospects  for  an  increased  demand  for  American  wheat  or  flour  are  any- 
thing but  favorable.  In  France  the  new  duties  on  wheat  and  flour,  the  report 
says,  are  higher  than  those  of  any  other  country  in  Europe.  The  discrimina- 
tion between  wheat  and  flour  is  such  as  to  be  almost  a  prohibition  against 
the  importation  of  the  latter  from  America.  The  number  of  flour  mills  in 
France  or  as  the  Consul  puts  it  ' '  those  occupied  exclusively  with  the 
grinding  of  grain  "  is  jo.ooo.  The  milling  industry  is  in  entire  harmony 
with  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  country  and  the  financial  interests 
of  the  cities.  Even  at  the  unprecedented  low  prices  of  grain  prevail- 
ing in  1893,  the  value  of  grain  handled  amounted  to  $482,500,000. 
This  .sum  would  be  larger  in  a  year  of  scarcity  and  high  prices.  In  1886 
the  National  Association  of  French  millers  was  founded,  including  the 
owners  of  all  the  great  mills  in  France.  This  association  meets  annually, 
and  all  questions  concerning  the  interests  of  the  trade  are  discussed. 
"  The  organization,"  says  Consul  Morss  in  conclusion,  "is  constantly  on 
the  alert  against  foreign  competition  in  the  French  market  and  is  a  factor 
always  to  be  considered  by  those  who  are  interested  in  extending  the 
demand  for  American  flour  in  France. ' ' 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


If  there  is  any  lesson  to  be  learned  from  a  stud}-  of  recent  tariff  legis- 
lation in  France  and  from  the  reports  of  our  consuls  it  is  to  the  effect  that 
France  is,  year  by  year,  successfullj'  aiming  fully  to  supply  her  own  needs, 
not  only  in  all  products  of  agriculture  but  in  manufactures  as  well.  As 
has  been  shown  in  this  chapter  France  has  developed  the  diversification  of 
industrj^  as  has  no  other  people  on  earth.  She  has  been  compelled  to 
learn  severe  lessons  in  the  past  and  her  bitter  experience  is  now  serving 
her  present  statesmen  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  in  their  wisdom  they 
will  continue  to  enact  such  laws  as  will  make  the  French  nation  and  the 
French  people,  so  far  as  is  expedient,  industrially  independent  of  all 
foreign  countries. 

The  statistics  showing  the  growth  of  the  foreign  trade  of  France 
will  be  found  in  Table  No.  ii,  at  page«3i2. 


I 


CHAPTER   IV. 

Austria-Hungary,  Italy,  Belgium,  Holland,  Switzerland  and 
Other  Countries. 

To-day  Austria-Hungary  has  a  population  of  42,750,000  (cen.sus  of 
1890},  and  an  area  of  about  264,000  square  miles,  corresponding  almost 
exactly  to  the  size  of  the  State  of  Texas.  It  is  the  most  mountainous 
country  of  Europe,  save  Switzerland,  four-fifths  of  the  entire  area  being 
more  than  six  hundred  feet  above  the  level  of  the  .sea.  Since  the  Treaty 
of  Prague,  in  1866,  Austria  has  enjoyed  a  period  of  peace  and  opportu- 
nities to  attain  industrial  progress,  of  which  she  has  not  been  slow  to  take 
advantage.  On  the  eighth  of  June,  1867,  the  Emperor  Francis  Joseph 
and  the  Empress  of  Austria  were  crowned  King  and  Queen  of  Hungary. 
Since  1780  when  Joseph  II.  made  many  changes  in  the  laws  of  the 
country,  Austria  has  enjoyed  prohibitive  custom  laws  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree.  But  neither  protective  nor  prohibitive  tariffs  can  give  work  and 
wealth  to  a  country  whose  soil  is  being  trodden  by  hostile  armies  and 
whose  people  are  engaged  in  defending  their  very  lives.  Between  wars 
Austria  attained  considerable  progress  in  trade  and  commerce,  but  only 
perhaps  to  have  the  gains  of  a  decade  swept  away  in  as  many  days. 
Again,  during  the  preparation  for  war,  as  well  as  during  a  war  period 
and  the  years  of  recovery  following,  duties  must  be  leyied  with  a 
view  to  revenue  as  well  as  food  and  other  supplies  for  the  army, 
home  industries  receiving  little  consideration.  In  1853  a  commercial 
treaty  was  effected  with  Prussia  through  the  influence  of  Prussian  free 
traders,  which  greatly  reduced  duties  on  imports.  This  treaty  is  of 
special  importance  because  it  was  brought  about  through  Mr.  Cobden's 
influence,  and  was  the  first  assault  on  protection  in  Europe  b)^  the  emis- 
saries of  Manchester.  Anj'  reduction  of  duties  in  favor  of  Prussia,  would 
be  of  equal  benefit  to  England,  because  Austria  was  bound  to  admit 
British  goods  under  the  same  terms  imposed  on  those  of  other  countries. 
By  adopting  free  trade  Great  Britain  had  nothing  to  offer  to  Austria  as 
an  inducement  to  extend  favors  to  her  manufacturers  so  her  schemes 
must  be  promoted  by  foreigners  working  in  her  behalf. 

Just  preceding  and  following  the  war  of  1866,  duties  were  consider- 
ably lowered,  arid  it  was  not  till  1882  that  all  thoroughly  protective  duties 
were  restored.  Upon  the  conclusion  of  peace,  however,  followed  by 
the  closer  union  with  Hungary,  Austria  began  at  once  to  advance  in  arts 
and  trades.  Manufacturers  saw  that  Austrians  could  not  be  successful 
competitors  without  a  thoroughly  protective  tariff,  and  succeeded  in 
(533) 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIEfi. 


obtaining  the  general  revision  of  18S2,  which  was  supplemented  in 
887  by  a  still  higher  rate  of  duties.  This  is  the  tariff  now  practically  in 
operation.  Three  hundred  and  fifty-seven  articles  are  enumerated,  of 
which  fifty-six  are  free  of  duty.  The  only  article  bearing  an  export  duty 
being  rags  and  other  refuse  for  the  manufacture  of  paper.  The  Austrian 
Empire  has  commercial  treaties  with  nearly  every  other  country,  though 
many  of  them  may  be  broken  off  at  any  time.  We  must  regard 
Austria-Hungary  in  the  light  of  a  new  country,  just  recovering  from 
centuries  of  past  struggles  and  still  maintaining  a  standing  army  of 
,500,000  men,  burdened  with  a  debt  amounting  to  nearly  $3,000,000,- 
000,  and  with  annual  revenues  hardly  equaling  expenditures.  In  recent 
years,  however,  she  has  enjoyed  a  favorable  balance  of  trade,  it  being  as 
high  as  $50,000,000  in  1893.  Year  by  year  imports  of  .such  articles  as 
can  be  produced  at  home  are  decreasing.  Like  Russia,  Austria  is  now 
a  large  exporting  country.  Of  sugar  alone  she  is  now  exporting  as  much 
as  $40,000,000  worth  a  year.  It  was  not  till  1864  that  Austria  began  to 
export  sugar,  the  foreign  sale  for  that  year  being  only  $670,000;  yet  in 
the  ten  years  from  1883  to  1893  the  value  of  sugar  exports  amounted  to 
$256,000,000.  It  is  such  figures  as  these  that  put  to  shame  the  actions  of 
American  free  traders,  who  would  and  do  deprive  our  farmers  of  an 
industry  worth  at  least  $100,000,000  annually. 

The  Austrian  and  Hungarian  governments  do  all  in  their  power 
to  promote  native  indu.stry.  The  result  is  that  in  twenty  years  an  extra- 
ordinary advance  has  been  made  both  in  manufactures  apd  agriculture. 
In  textiles  and  in  iron  and  steel  industries  most  satisfactory  progress 
has  been  made.  There  are  also  glass  and  leather,  paper  and  copper 
industries,  as  well  as  numerous  minor  undertakings.  Austria  is  noted 
for  its  beer,  about  5000  breweries  being  in  operation,  while  brandy  and 
other  liquors  are  made  to  some  extent.  Mining  is  a  verj'  important 
Austrian  industry,  coal  being  the  chief  product.  In  1893,  19 1.876  laborers 
were  emplo5'ed  of  whom  14,500  were  women  and  children.  The  pro- 
duction of  the  mines  in  1892  amounted  in  value  to  $10,000,000. 

Agriculture  is,  however,  the  chief  occupation  of  the  people,  the  pro- 
ductive land  being  nearly  90  per  cent  of  the  total  area.  The  principal 
product  is  grain,  including  wheat,  rye,  oats,  maize,  barley,  buc;kwheat 
and  millet.  Flax,  hemp,  beets,  hops,  tobacco  and  vegetables  are  also 
raised  in  large  quantities.  Fruit  and  nuts  also  abound.  Nearly  one- 
third  of  the  land  is  occupied  by  forests  which  consi.st  mainly  of  oak, 
pine,  beech,  a.sh  and  elm.  The  increa.se  in  production  of  agricultural 
products  has  given  a  great  impetus  to  the  making  at  home  of  farming 
implements,  which  is  to  a  great  extent  shutting  out  the  make  of  foreign 
countries  formerly  imported.  Not  only  that  but  nearlj-  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  railways  for  rails  and  rolling  .stock  are  made  at  home.  To 
be   sure,    British    firms    with    Briti.sh   capital,    aided    by    other    foreign 


A  U8TBIA-HUNGA  E  Y.  IT  A  L  Y, 


capitalists, have  brought  this  about,  but  British  capital  at  work  in  Austria- 
Hungary  is  worth  more  to  the  empire  than  British  capital  at  work  in 
England.  Englishmen  have  a  habit  when  they  find  their  wares  Shut  out 
from  a  country  by  import  duties,  of  emigrating  to  that  country  with  the 
industry  itself.  This  gives  employment  to  the  native  who  soon  learns 
to  make  his  own  goods.  It  has  been  so  with  the  Austrian.  He  has  been 
quick  to  learn  and  has  rapidly  become  a  skilled  artisan.  Says  the 
British  Consul  in  a  recent  report  to  his  government :  "The  imports  of 
manufactured  goods  decrease  from  year  to  year,  on  account  of  the  pro- 
duction in  Austria  being  protected  by  such  high  duties  an  increase  of 
which  is  po.ssible  as  an  agitation  is  always  going  on  on  the  part  of  the 
Austrian  manufacturer. 

The  decrease  in  imports  has  been  regular  and  will  continue  if  the 
duties  are  raised.  New  establishments  are  being  founded  by  Austrian 
firms  and  with  Austrian  money.  The  rate  of  wages  is  on  the  increase. 
Skilled  labor  is  in  great  demand.  The  wages  on  an  average  in  all  lines 
of  work  are  about  seventy  cents  per  day,  though  in  many  occupations  they 
are  from  eighty  cents  to  one  dollar.  In  most  parts  of  the  empire 
wages  have  doubled  in  the  last  twenty  years.  The  following  table  taken 
from  United  States  Consular  Report  No.  164,  page  44,  will  show  the 
exports  of  Austria-Hungary  to  the  United  States  for  the  calendar  year 
1893: 

V.\i,uE  OF  Declared  Exports  from  Austria-Hungary  to  the  United  States 
During  the  Year  Ending  December  31,  1893. 


Articles. 

Albumen, 

Amber, 

Argols, 

Art,  works  of, 

Artificial  flowers, 

Baskets  and  basket  ware,  . 
Beans  and  lentils,     .... 

Bed  feathers, 

Beer, 

Beet-root  sugar 

Black  lead 

Bonnet  frames, 

Brushes  and  bristles,  .    .    . 

Buttons,      

Carlsbad  Sprudel  salt,  .  . 
Chenilles  and  embroideries, 
Cloth  and  woolen  goods,  . 
Coffee  and  surrogates,  .  . 
Cotton  goods,    ...... 

Cutlery. 

Cuttle  bone 

Dresses, 

Drugs  and  chemicals,     .    . 

Fan's 

Felt 


Carried   forward. 


Value. 

p         23,470.43 

16,780.93 

4,092.76 

33.969-17 

39,172.70 

37,461.32 

718,120.73 

190,095.38 

103,036.23 

3,306,954.45 

13.43242 

2,117.26 

14,004.44 

315,697.25 

33.340.26 

15,912.86 

120,214.37 

219.733-36 

259.900-55 

14,931.66 

13.571-05 

2,350.31 

120,491.61 

209,810.29 

10,696.47 

$5,839,358.26 


Brought  forward,     .    . 
Fruits,  dried,  etc.,  .... 

Furniture 

Furs, 

Glassware, 

Gloves, 

Graphite,  

Gums  and  glue, 

Hair: 

Animal 

Human 

Hats, 

Herbs,  roots  and  leaves,    . 

Hops  and  lupulin 

Insect  powder  and  flowers. 

Jewelry,      

Leather  and  skins,      .    .    . 

Leather  goods, 

Linen  goods, 

Machines  and  parts  thereof. 

Books  and  paper 

Carbon  lights 

Magnesite, 

Meerschaum,  crude,  .    .    . 
Metal  ware 

Carried  forward,  .    .    . 


Value. 

15,839,358.26 

247.730-40 

83, 200. 29 

1,711.29 

965,810.55 

292,110.93 

9.656.31 

92,454.18 

19,722.83 
34,254.88 
2.759-42 
33,690.34 
94,145-62 
71,389.22 

290,007.47 

236,049.94 
42,853-07 

811,257.52 
1,191.00 
28,524.24 
29.255-75 
10,644.77 
37,070.70 

151.S07.3 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Articles. 

Brought  forward,     .    .    %<), 

Miueral  water,      

Mirror  glass, 

Musical  instruments.  .  .  . 
Oils,  paiuts  and  colors,  .  . 
Ozcerits  and  cersin,    .    .    . 

Paper  goods 

Pearl  blanks 

Polishing  earth,  ... 
Porcelain  and  pottery,  .    . 

Potash, 

P"1P 

Scientific  instruments. 

Seeds, 

Shell  and  bone  ware. 
Shoes  and  boots,  .  . 
Silks  and  velvets,    .    . 

Skeletons 

Smokers'  articles,  .  . 
Soap  and  perfumery, 

Carried  forivard,  . 


,426,656.35 
92,494.81 
31.395-22 
40,061.85 

101,142.28 


19.7S1.71 

5,819.46 

717,666.95 

33.846.53 

229,228.44 

8,774-95 

23-750.55 

30.235-34 

18,462.39 

259,179.68 

3.596-72 

106,706.28 

3.775-23 

,196,870.40 


Brought  forward,     .    . 

Sponges, 

Sparterie,       

Stained  glass, 

Stationery, 

Tobacco 

Toys, 

Umbrella  fixtures   and 

sticks,      

Wax  figures,      

White  lead 

Wines  and  liquors,  .... 

Wooden  ware, 

Wool,       

Miscellaneous 


Ill, 


96,870.40 
8,901.70 
9,818.57 
7,884.92 

ii.3'-94 
2,059.02 

25.466-59 

131,248.30 
3.497-oS 
7,202.63 
92.965- 73 
28. 944.-89 
157,066.52 
61,037.12 


Total  in  1893, 
Total  in  1S92, 
Total  in  1S91, 
Total  in  1S90, 
Total  in  1S89,, 


.  111,744,325-41 
-  10,197,576.17 
•  13.595.374-32 
■  14.355,225.57 
.       9,121.84633 


It  is  very  evident  that  we  are  not  going  to  find  a  market  in  Austria 
for  these  eighty  articles  which  they  are  now  making  for  us.  Not  onlj-  must 
weeUminate  Austria- Hungary  as  a  market  for  manufacturing,  but  we  are 
hardly  likely  to  sell  much  grain  to  a  country  whose  grain  crop  is  the  largest 
in  the  world  oufeide  of  our  own  country  and  Russia,  and  which  exports 
from  30,000,000  to  50,000,000  bushels  annually  of  grain  and  flour.  At 
present  our  exports  to  Austria  are  so  insignificant  that  they  are  classified 
under  ' '  all  other  countries  ' '  in  the  government  statistics.  We  do  sell  them 
half  a  miUion  dollars'  worth  of  merchandise,  mostly  oils,  but  it  is  not  likely 
that  we  are  going  to  increase  our  sales.  Even  if  Austria  were  not  supplying 
her  own  wants,  she  is  in  the  centre  of  a  group  of  nations  with  unlimited 
productive  power  and  resources  and  with  rates  of  wages  about  one-quarter 
those  of  our  own  workmen.  Nor  is  there  any  tendency  to  a  lowering  of 
duties;  on  the  contrary,  the  Chambers  of  Commerce,  as  well  as  the  pro- 
ducers and  consumers,  are  so  satisfied  with  the  system  of  high  duties,  that 
there  is  constant  agitation  for  still  higher  rates.  Should  peace  continue  for 
another  decade  or  two,  the  intelligent,  skillful,  industrious,  ambitious 
Austrian  will  not  only  supply  all  of  his  own  needs  as  far  as  possible,  but 
be  a  sharp  and  successful  competitor  in  the  markets  of  the  world  wherever 
he  can  gain  access. 

Italy. 

Italy,  prior  to  1.S60,  suffered  from  wars,  a  social  and  economic  evil, 
which  made  the  development  of  indu.stries  most  difficult.  In  1859  Victor 
Emmanuel,  King  of  Sardinia,  gained  Lombardy,  Parma,  Modena  and 
some  of  the  Pontifical  States.  Tuscany  was  also  atniexed  and  soon  after 
the  two  Sicilies,  the  Marches  and  Umbria.      These  were  all  united  under 


AUST£IA-HiL\'GABV,  ITALY,  ETC. 


the  title  of  Kingdom  of  Italy  in  1861,  with  Florence  as  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment. By  the  treaty  of  Prague,  in  1866,  Venetia  was  gained  by  royal 
decree  and  the  remainder  of  the  Papal  States  were  annexed  in  1870, 
Rome  becoming  the  capital  of  the  now  reunited  kingdom.  It  is  only 
since  this  date  then,  that  a  satisfactory  tariff  and  industrial  history  of 
Italy  can  be  given. 

To-day  is  found  a  people  numbering  30,000,000,  and  occupying  ter- 
ritorj'  of  about  114,000  square  miles,  or  6000  miles  less  than  the  United 
Kingdom,  and  1000  square  miles  less  than  New  York  and  the  New  Eng- 
land States.  With  her  rich  soil,  warm  and  favorable  climate,  Italy  from 
the  earliest  time  has  been  noted  for  the  richness  and  great  variety  of  her 
agricultural  products.  Previous  to  the  union  manufacturing  had  been 
carried  on  to  little  extent.  Upon  the  union  of  the  Italian  States  the  old 
customs  barriers  were  removed  to  the  frontier,  and  maintained  almost 
solely  for  revenue  purposes.  But  in  about  1870  the  necessity  of  protect- 
ing agriculture,  the  importance  of  establishing  industries  and  adopting 
an  industrial  policy  in  harmony  with  the  other  States  of  Europe,  became 
fully  recognized,  the  revenue  policy  was  abandoned  and  a  system  of  pro- 
tection to  home  industries  established.  The  Suez  Canal  had  made  the 
trade  of  Asia  accessible  to  her  merchants.  Two  great  Alpine  tunnels 
placed  them  in  communication  with  Central  Europe  and  afforded  excel- 
lent facilities  for  transportation. 

At  first  foreign  firms  were  induced  to  establish  themselves  in  the 
country.  Water  power  gave  place  to  steam.  Slowly  the  small  factories 
began  to  enlarge,  thousands  of  rustic  laborers  moved  to  the  cities  and 
industrial  centres,  till  to-day  Italy  is  making  great  strides  in  manufactur- 
ing, wholly  supplying  many  of  her  own  wants  and  becoming  an  exporter 
of  those  articles  which  hitherto  had  been  imported.  The  kingdom  is 
amassing  wealth,  the  people  are  adding  to  their  savings,  and  when  com- 
pared with  conditions  of  scarcely  a  generation  ago,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  people  are  thriving  and  prosperous.  The  tariff  policy  of  the  country 
is  definitely  protective.  The  method  of  aiding  industrial  development  is 
similar  to  that  adopted  by  Russia ;  at  first  an  industry  itself  is  established 
by  any  encouragement  that  will  bring  about  its  rapid  growth.  Gradually 
the  duty  on  the  finished  article  is  raised,  and  duties  are  levied  one  by  one  on 
the  materials  used,  as  it  is  seen  that  they  also  can  be  produced  at  home.  The 
present  tariff  schedule  contains  350  enumerated  articles,  only  sixty  of 
which  are  admitted  free,  the  latter  including  raw  cotton,  wool,  metallic 
ores,  hides,  seeds,  eggs  of  silk  worms  and  coal.  Those  articles  bearing 
an  export  duty  are  boracic  acid,  marine  and  rock  salt,  tartar  and  tartar 
crusts,  fruits  for  dyeing  and  tanning,  metallic  ores,  sulphur,  castor  and 
flax  oils  and  objects  of  art.  The  tariff  law  of  1887,  although  necessarily 
an  excessive  revenue  measure  was  designed  also  to  afford  protection  to 
domestic  industries. 


PROTECTIOiX  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTEIES. 


Perhaps  no  greater  indication  of  the  country's  welfare  is  seen  than 
in  the  fact  that  the  total  number  of  pupils  in  the  elementarj^  schools  has 
increased  150  per  cent  since  i860,  the  number  of  teachers  having 
increased  in  about  the  same  proportion.  Agricultural,  industrial,  com- 
mercial and  technical  education  is  now  being  greath-  encouraged  by  both 
private  and  governmental  aid.  Protection  has  ever  been  a  great  lever  to 
promote  the  mental  as  well  as  the  material  welfare  of  a  people.  Every 
year  since  1870  has  shown  a  substantial  increase  in  the  savings  of  the 
masses.     In    1872  the  savings  amounted  to  only  $95,000,000,  while  in 

1889  the}'  exceeded  $350,000,000,  and  it  is  estimated  that  they  have  now 
passed  the  $400,000,000  mark.  Postal  savings  banks  were  established  in 
1876,  and  in  these  institutions,  which  have  been  patronized  almost 
exclusively  by  the  laboring  classes,  the  deposits  have  increased  from 
$500,000  to  $57,000,000.  No  reliable  figures  are  at  hand  to  show  the 
national  wealth  of  Italy,  though  it  is  estimated  at  $10,000,000,000. 
Compared  with  some  other  countries  it  is,  of  course,  very  .small.  Bur- 
dened with  a  great  debt,  with  an  annual  deficit  which  is  balanced  by 
foreign  holdings  and  gains,  Italy  has  a  .struggle  before  her  that  will 
continue  for  many  years.  Italy  cannot  yet  pay  goods  for  goods,  nor  can 
she  pay  for  excess  of  imports  wholly  with  gold.     The  foreign  trade  of 

1890  can  be  seen  from  the  following  enumeration  and  values  taken  from 
United  States  Consular  Report  No.  140,  page  60,  May,  1892: 

Table  Showing  thk  Commerce  of  Italy  for  the  Year  1S90. 

Iraport-s.  .     Exports. 

AKriLLEh.  jg^jj  ,y^g 

Spirits,  wine  and  oils $6,916,224  117,886,776 

Groceries,  spices  and  tobacco 16,841,340  i, 393, 507 

Chemicals,  drugs,  resins  and  perfumery,  .    .  8,924,696  8,389,606 

D3'es,  dye  stuffs  and  tanners' articles,    ,    ,    .  4.519.447  i,937.054 

Hemp,  flax,  jute,  etc 5.0&7.797  7. 895,577 

Cotton, 34,408,561  5.756,342 

Wool  and  hair, 17,898,061  1,951,548 

Silk,      16,813,097  57.959-994 

Wood  and  straw 8,345,542  6,670,5,89 

Books  and  paper 2,432,150  2,060,347 

Skins,  hides  and  furs,      8,762,123  4,018,816 

Minerals  and  metals 32.503.615  5,387.778 

Stones,  earths,  pottery  and  glass, 27.691.496  10,078,439 

Cereals,   flour   and   vegetable  products   not 

elsewhere  included, 38,203,374  17,218,565 

Animals    and    animal     products    not   else- 
where included,     21,140,715  18,644,644 

Miscellaneous 3,632,827  1,772,227 

Total 1254,101,065        1169,021,809 

Gold  and  silver 11,126,064  12,864,434 

Grand  total 1265,227,129        |i8i, 886,243 

Excess  of  imports  over  exports  (merchandise) 75.079.256 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


The  trade  with  the  United  States  can  be  seen  from  the  following  table; 


United  States  and  Canada.* 

ARTICLES.  iv^vons.  Exports. 

Spirits,  wine  and  oils, f^, 196,533  $2,229,922 

Groceries,  spices  and  tobacco, 3,i7'i569  461,270 

Chemicals,  drugs,  resins  and  perfumery,    .    .  1,979,794  2,448,205 

Dyes,  dye  stuflFs  and  tanners' articles,     .    .    .  162,892  305,712 

Hemp,  flax,  jute,  etc.,      i,930  34,547 

Cotton,          4,705,533  31,266 

Wool  and  hair .  44,39°  7,334 

Wood  and  straw 489,834  371,911 

Silk, 965  991,634 

Books  and  paper, 6,369  152,277 

Skins,  hides  and  furs, 105,378  181,420 

Minerals  and  metals, 341,417  216,353 

Stones,  earths,  potter}' and  glass 121,204  2,371,777 

Cereals,    flour    and   vegetable   products  not 

elsewhere  included 230,249  4,390,557 

Animals  and  animal  products  not  elsewhere 

included,       974,264  247,040 

Miscellaneous 10,615  ^46,873 

Total, 114,542,936         114,588,098  ' 

*The  trade  with  Canada  is  insignificant, 

Btit  it  must  be  remembered  that  Italy,  great  as  has  been  her  progress 
since  1870,  and  particularlj-  since  1887,  is  still  trying  to  supply  her  own 
wants.  Till  that  is  done  she  cannot  have  a  favorable  balance  of  trade. 
A  foreign  commerce  does  not,  however,  measure  a  country's  prosperity. 
It  may,  on  the  contrary,  be  an  indication  of  decline.  The  nation  that 
cannot  produce  for  itself  to  a  large  degree  must  pay  the  bill,  and  the  end 
is  bankruptcy.  Italy  is  beginning  to  supply  a  large  proportion  of  her 
needs.  She  is  feeding  her  own  people,  and  furnishing  much  of  the  raw 
material  for  her  workmen  to  make  up  into  manufactured  goods.  Tariffs, 
however,  cannot  assure  good  crops,  and  in  this  respect  Italj-  has  suffered 
considerably  since  1886-87.  The  failure  of  the  crops  caused  a  financial 
crisis,  from  which  she  is  now  recovering.  Labor  troubles,  too,  have  had 
their  effect,  as  has  the  breaking  of  the  French  treaty  and  the  industrial 
war  with  that  country. 

And  yet  Italy  has  shown  wonderful  progress,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  statistics  gathered  from  United  States  and  British  Consular 
reports.  The  average  crop  and  production  of  six  great  staples  from  i860 
to  1890  is  here  presented: 

1  United  States  Consular  Report,  May.  1S92,  p.  7. 


PEOTECTION  IX  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Average  Crop. 


Articles. 

1860-62 

1870-74 

1879-S3. 

1  Hectolitres. 
35,820,000 
16,900,000 
17,150,000 
1,433,000 

71,303,000 

Hectolitres. 
50,898,000 
31,174,000 

13,155,000 
9,798,000 

105,025,000 

Hectolitres. 
46,655,000 
29,661,000 
12,172,000 
7,381,000 

95,869,000 

Maize,        

Other  cereals 

Oil,     ...           

1,565,000 
24,003,000 

3,323,000 
27,539,000 

3,436,000 
36,594,000 

Wine, 

Annuai,  Produce. 


Artici.es. 


Wheat,  .  . 
Maize,  .  .  . 
Other  cereals, 
Rice,      .    .    . 

Oil,     .... 
Wine,    .   .    . 


Hectolitres. 
38,873000 
25,606,000 
9,356,000 
5,155,000 


78, 990,  ( 


Hectolitres. 
38,464,000 
28,918,000 
10,515,000 

8,428,000 


«6,325,( 


28,  i48,c 
i3,9o8,( 
7.94o,c 


To  give  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  total  agricultural  resources  of 
Italy,  the  following  table  is  cited: 

Table  Showing  the  Italian  Crops  for  the  Year  1889. 


Crop. 


Wheat, 

Corn, 

Oats,  . 

Barley, 

Rye, 

Rice,  . 

Beans, 

Fave   (chick-pea). 


Hemp,  .  . 
Flax,  .  .  . 
Potatoes,  . 
Chestnuts, 


'  Oue  hectolitre  is  equal  to  2.84  bushels 


103,010,270.39 

73,142,687.05 

16,213,522.38 

7,647,320.21 

3,832,631.02 

19,642,317.35 

4.559.777-71 

8,516,99409 

Tons. 

78, 140 

13.573-04 

564,117.05 

264,562.09 


77-95 

86.89 

Si. 15 

70 

73-4 

95-61 

80.54 

7465 

91-59 
68.03 
64.01 
67- 84 


1  No.  195  of  the  British  Report  on  Foreign  Countries, 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


According  to 
Crop.  Quantity  produced.  average  crop. 

Gallons  Per  cent. 

Wine 574,758,340.96  59-19 

Olive  oil 35,347,372.52  39-47 

Tons. 

Hay,        7,562,461 

Grass, 7,615,900 

Green  fodder, 9,8:18,795 

Tubers 701,194 

Pounds. 

Tobacco 3,873,968.59 

Silk  cocoons, 75,800,609.36 

Number. 
Oranges,  lemons  and  citrons,  2,787,910,700  73-82' 

There  are  about  5,000,000  acres  under  cultivation,  most  of  which  are 
or  can  be  irrigated  by  public  works.  The  Italian  farmer,  however,  is  not 
yet  able  successfully  to  compete  in  all  his  productions  with  the  agricul- 
turist of  Russia,  Hungary  or  even  India.  As  70  per  cent  of  the  people 
are  engaged  directly  in  agriculture  and  10  per  cent  of  the  remainder  are 
engaged  in  transportation,  etc.,  it  will  be  seen  how  dependent  the  country 
is  on  her  crops  and  harvests.  Including  forest  products,  livestock  and 
all  gardening,  the  total  value  of  Italian  agriculture  amounts  to  but  little 
less  than  $1,000,000,000  annually. 

Coming  now  to  manufactures  it  is  found  that  Italy,  considering  the 
difficulties  under  which  she  has  labored,  has  made  great  strides  in  the  last 
few  years  under  her  system  of  protective  tariffs.  In  textiles  there  has 
been  a  gradual  and  steady  improvement,  especially  in  the  production  of 
silk  and  cotton.  Italy  holds  a  foremost  position  in  the  production  of  silk- 
worms and  raw  silk,  being  second  only  to  China,  while  her  silk  manufac- 
tures are  increasing  yearly.  Over  100,000  people,  mostly  women  and 
children,  are  engaged  in  unwinding  the  cocoons,  though  the  industry  is 
subject  to  great  changes.  The  imports  of  manufactured  silk  fell  off  50 
percent  from  1887  to  1890,  which  points  to  a  large  increase  in  home  manu- 
facture. The  increased  imports  of  raw  cotton,  amounting  to  50  per  cent 
from  1886  to  1890,  are  indications  of  the  rapid  progress  that  is  being  made 
in  cotton  manufactures.  At  least  2, 000, Coo  spindles  are  now  at  work,  an 
increase  of  200  per  cent  since  1870.  The  woolen  industry  though 
improving  rapidly  has  hardly  kept  pace  with  other  textiles.  Perhaps  the 
greatest  advance  has  been  made  in  the  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel. 
Italy  is  now  making  much  of  her  machinery  and  implements,  as  well  as 
becoming  an  adept  in  bridge  building,  locomotive  and  railway  carriage 
making.  The  manufacture  of  paper  has  made  much  progress,  and  many 
grades  are  now  being  exported.  Till  within  a  few  years  many  of  the 
owners  and  nearly  all  the  managers  of  mills  were  foreigners.  Now  year 
by  year  native  labor  and  native  capital  is  gradually  replacing  the  foreign. 

1  United  States  Consular  Report,  No.  140,  p.  73. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


In  1 860  there  were  not  more  than  five  mechanical  works  of  any  importance 
in  Italy.     The  number  now  exceeds  two  hundred. 

As  regards  wages,  some  idea  may  be  gained  from  the  following: 

Wages  of  Hands  Attached  to  Some  Industrial  Establishments,  in 
Italian  Lire. 


Description. 


Cantoni   cotton  mill,  province   of  Milan- 

Spinuers.  males 

Weavers,  males,       

Rossi  woolen  mill,  province  of  Vicenza- 

Spinners,  males,      

Weavers,  males, 

Sella  woolen   mill,    province  of  Novara- 

Spinners,  males, 

Carders,  males, 

Keller  silk  mill,  province  of  Cuneo — 

Spinners,  females 

Throwsters,  females,  ...  ... 

Italian   paper  mill,  province  of  Novara- 

Rag  workers,  

Paper  makers, 

Lanza  candle  factory,  province  of  Turin- 
Hands,  males, 

Hands,  females, 

Sardinian  miners —        

Sardinians,  males 

From  Continent,  males, 


B67. 

.87.. 

1881. 

' 

.  c. 

L.c. 

L.c. 

Lc. 

40 
70 

1. 60 
1.85 

1.70 

:;S 

94 
65 

1 
4.62  i  5.50  j  5.50 
3.96  I  3.96    3.96 


1. 21 
1.32 


1.65 
1.76 


2.16 
0.72 


0.78 


2.50 
3.00 


1.30 
2.2S 


2.40 
3.80 


2.28 
2.56 


It  will  be  seen  that  there  has  been  a  constant  rise  since  i860.  The 
same  general  rise  has  taken  place  in  all  industries  save,  perhaps,  in  the 
sulphur  mines,  where  wages  have  declined  owing  to  the  diminished  value 
of  sulphur. 

Not  only  have  wages  increased  but  prices  of  all  articles  of  consump- 
tion have  decreased.  In  1862  it  took  the  pay  of  195  hours'  work  to  pur- 
chase 220  pounds  of  wheat.  In  1889  it  took  but  95  hours'  work.  While 
food  and  clothing  are  much  lower,  rents  are  a  little  higher,  as  the  Italian  is, 
with  his  improved  condition,  requiring  better  accommodations.  While  the 
Italian  laborer  is,  perhaps,  not  so  persevering  as  his  fellow  workmen  in 
other  countries,  yet  he  shows  great  versatility  and  not  a  little  quickness  of 
intelligence.  As  instruction  through  the  schools  and  press  becomes  more 
widely  diffused  the  result  is  apparent  on  all  classes.  The  low  rate  of 
wages  is,  in  great  part,  due  to  the  small  productiveness  of  the  operatives. 
In  Italy  it  takes  1 2  men  to  do  the  work  done  by  7  or  8  in  the  United 
States  or  England.  Agricultural  laborers  receive  still  less  than  those 
employed  in  mechanical  pursuits.  Never  more  than  40  cents  a  day  in 
summer  and  30  cents  in  winter,  while  the  average  is  nearer  20  cents  a 

'  I  L.  -    19.3  cents  ;  loo  c.  -  i  lira.         =  British  Foreign  Reports,  No.  21.. 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


day  for  the  whole  year  round.  The  women  earn  from  lo  to  12  cents  a 
day,  though  many  are  working  in  the  mills  where  they  can  earn  twice  that 
amount.  The  Italian  laborer  is,  however,  on  the  whole  contented.  He 
is  frugal,  easily  satisfied,  and  slow  to  advance.  It  must  be  many 
years  before  the  Italian  can  be  on  an  equalitj-  with  the  inhabitants  of  most 
of  the  other  countries  of  Europe.  With  a  national  debt  of  $2,500,000,000, 
with  an  annual  adverse  balance  of  trade  amounting  to  $60,000,000  and  an 
aiuiual  deficit  in  the  treasury  to  the  same  amount,  the  progress  must 
indeed  be  slow,  and  when  crop  failures  for  years  in  succession,  earthquakes 
and  epidemics  come,  discouragement  is  universal.  It  is,  then,  so  much 
more  to  the  credit  of  the  Italian  people  and  the  Italian  nation  that  there 
has  been  so  much  progress  made  since  the  United  Kingdom  was  estab- 
lished in  1870.  But  for  her  protective  tariff  Italy  would  have  remained 
where  she  was  in  1870,  without  manufactures  and  without  the  ambition  to 
reach  out  as  she  is  now  doing,  without  the  impulse  and  desire  not  only  to 
supply  her  own  wants  so  far  as  possible,  but  to  sell  as  much  as  she  buys 
and  rise  from  the  position  of  a  debtor  to  independence  and  industrial  free- 
dom. In  short,  as  British  Consul  Colnaghi  said  in  a  recent  report  to  his 
go%-ernment :  ' '  Italians  are  making  strenuous  efforts  to  render  them- 
selves independent  industrially  as  they  have  succeeded  in  doing  from  a 
political  point  of  view." 

As  manufactures  have  grown  the  need  of  shipping  has  been  met  by 
government  bounties  amounting  to  half  a  million  of  dollars  annually.  The 
result  is  seen  in  the  increase  of  Italian  vessels  and  tonnage  amounting  to 
over  150  per  cent  since  1870.  It  may  be  asked  how  Italy  pays  the 
interest  on  her  debt  and  settles  for  the  adverse  balance  of  trade  as  well  as 
the  annual  deficit  in  her  treasury.  The  people  are,  of  course,  burdened 
with  taxes  while  foreign  holdings  increase  from  year  to  j'ear.  A  large 
source  of  income,  however,  not  seen  in  official  reports,  is  the  large 
amount  left  each  year  by  tourists.  This  amount  has  been  estimated  as 
high  as  $100,000,000,  though  this  is  probably  excessive.  It  is,  however, 
a  most  material  help  in  settling  the  trade  balances  of  the  countrj^. 

With  a  period  of  good  crops  and  freedom  from  disease  and  war,  Italy 
will  soon  show  a  healthy  financial  condition,  the  inevitable  effect  of  a 
reasonable  period  of  protection. 

Holland  and  Belgium. 

In  previous  chapters  the  early  development  of  industries  in  the 
Netherlands  was  referred  to.  In  1652  the  Dutch  had  reached  a  commer- 
cial pre-eminence  which  aroused  the  jealousy  of  France  and  England. 
Relying  almost  wholly  on  foreign  trade  and  commerce  as  the  chief  means 
of  commercial  prosperity,  as  her  .shipping  interests  were  destroyed  and 
the   carrying   trade ,  of   the   world  came  to   be   divided  with    England, 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Holland  began  to  decline.  A  small  power,  unable  to  cope  with  her  more 
powerful  rivals,  England  and  France,  gradually,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
seventeenth  and  during  the  eighteenth  century,  as  her  foreign  trade 
passed  from  her,  she  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  of  great  commercial 
importance.  Having  lost  her  possessions  in  the  New  World,  she 
retained,  even  at  the  termination  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  her  possessions 
in  Asia,  which  have  been  a  valuable  .source  of  wealth  to  her  merchants. 
During  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  industries  of  Holland 
and  Belgium  suffered  greatlj-  from  French  and  Engli.sh  competition. 
Although  deriving  some  advantage  from  the  Continental  policy  of 
Napoleon,  yet  after  the  battle  of  Waterloo  these  countries,  like  Ger- 
many and  other  parts  of  Europe,  were  inundated  with  British  goods 
which  inflicted  a  great  loss  on  their  manufacturers.  The  separation  of  the 
two  countries  into  independent  kingdoms  in  1830  marked  a  beginning  of 
industrial  policies  which,  especially  in  Belgium,  have  restored  the  former 
indu.strial  greatness  of  the  people. 

The  Foreign  Office  has  recently  issued  a  summary  of  the  official  statistics  of  the 
foreign  trade  of  Belgium  for  the  year  1S89,  compiled  at  the  British  Legation  in 
Brussels.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  imports  and  exports  of  this  little  countrj-,  of 
barely  six  millions  of  people,  amounted  for  the  year  to  ^244,796,000,  an  increase  of  4 
per  cent  on  those  of  1888.  When  English  free  traders  boast  of  the  vastness  of  the 
foreign  trade  of  this  country  as  the  special  mark  and  test  of  national  prosperity,  they 
would  do  well  to  remember  that,  accepting  this  test,  we  should  need,  in  order  to  bring 
ourselves  up  to  the  Belgium  level,  to  double  our  imports  and  exports,  and  to  create 
a  foreign  trade  of  ^1,468,776,000,  instead  of  ovir  last  year's  "prosperous"  and 
"improved  "  foreign  trade  of  ^748.777,226.' 

During  the  centuries  that  these  countries  have  been  subjected  to  all 
changes  that  accompany  and  follow  foreign,  civil  and  commercial  warfare, 
they  have  retained  the  spirit  of  industry  exemplified  in  the  quotation 
given  above.  A  brief  review  of  the  early  commercial  importance  of  the 
Netherlands  has  already  been  given  in  the  chapter  devoted  to  the  Devel- 
opment of  Trade  and  Industries  in  Western  Europe.  It  is  not  within  the 
province  of  this  work  to  follow  the  vicissitudes  of  these  countries  for  the 
centuries  following. 

"  Till  1844,"  says  Robert  Ellis  Thompson,  in  his  Elements  of  Politi- 
cal Economy,  "Belgium  'that  cockpit  of  Europe'  was  a  free  trade 
country. ' '  She  had  prospered  to  some  degree  under  the  rule  of  Napoleon , 
and  shared  somewhat  in  the  general  rise  of  industries.  But  when  peace 
returned  .she  was  flooded  with  the  cheap  wares  of  England  and  her  manu- 
factures were  almost  ruined.  Finallj-  an  inquiry  was  ordered  by  the  gov- 
ernment and  a  report  made  in  1842  upon  the  state  of  industry  and  commerce. 
In  1844  Belgium  adopted  protection  for  the  first  time  and  Holland 
followed  the  next  year.  A  reciprocity  treaty  was  effected  between  the 
two  countries  in  1846.     The    result  has  been  marvelous. 

>  Fair  Trade  Jourual,  Vol,  VI.,  p    ji,;. 


AUSTEIA-HUNGABY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


"If  any  one,"  says  a  Belgian  free  trader,  "had  left  the  country  in  1835,  after 
having  visited  our  principal  manufacturing  centres,  and  were  to  come  back  to  it 
now,"  in  1861,  "he  would  be  struck  with  the  transformation  that  they  have  under- 
gone, the  advance  they  have  achieved;  he  would  find  a  numerous,  intelligent  and 
active  population  of  working  people,  where  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  he  would 
have  seen  nothing  but  countrj-  houses  scattered  at  wide  intervals  over  extensive 
plains.  As  a  consequence,  production,  except  of  articles  of  food,  has  outrun  the 
needs  of  population,  although  it  has  increased  in  numbers  and  in  wealth,  and  we 
are  obliged  to  seek  for  foreign  outlets.  "  ■ 

Belgium  has  continued  her  protective  policy  to  the  present  time, 
while  Holland  revised  her  tariff  in  1862,  to  practically  a  revenue  basis. 
Under  protection  Belgium  has  been  able  to  maintain  her  industries 
against  all  competition  and  has  reached  such  efficiency  that  she  holds 
pre-eminence  over  England  in  the  production  of  many  articles.  Many 
Belgian  locomotives  are  run  on  English  railroads.  Her  iron  masters 
have  taken  contracts  to  supply  iron  goods  and  bridge  material  for  the 
construction  of  bridges  in  Great  Britain. 

But  the  position  and  conditions  of  both  Belgium  and  Holland  are 
unique,  and  in  a  great  measure  different  from  tho.se  of  any  other  country. 
The  people  are  willing  to  work  for  almost  nothing  and  live  in  the  most 
frugal  manner.  From  a  report  of  Mr.  Fane,  British  Secretary  of  Legation 
at  Brussels,  one  can  learn  that  "there  are  as  many  steam  horses  as  there 
are  families  in  the  countrj',"  and  as  he  adds,  "imagine  what  they  add  to 
the  productive  power  of  the  nation."  He  speaks  of  "the  wail  of  .suffer- 
ing among  the  well-to-do  people,"  and  then  says  that  "instead  of  a 
diminishment,  a  wonderful  increase  is  going  on  in  the  wealth  of  Belgium 
and  that  this  progre.ssing  increase  of  wealth  is  benefiting  solely  the 
working  classes."  In  speaking  of  the  "astounding  productiveness  of 
industry,"  and  the  purchasing  power  of  the  people,  he  saj-s:  "Wages 
themselves  have  risen  absolutely  and  in  a  proportion  quite  remarkable," 
quoting  authorities  to  the  effect  that  while  in  1840  they  amounted  to 
500,000,000  francs,  when  the  population  was  about  .70  per  cent  of  what  it 
is  now,  at  the  present  time  they  exceed  1,625,000,000  francs. 

It  may  be  safely  assumed  then  that  the  industrial  classes  of  both 
Belgium  and  Holland  are  advancing  in  productive  capacity  and  purchas- 
ing power  along  with  the  other  Continental  countries;  that  in  neither 
is  there  any  hope  of  any  increased  market  for  American  agricultural 
products  or  manufactured  wares.  To  make  this  clear  and  conclusive  we 
have  only  to  glance  at  the  resources  of  the  two  countries  at  the  present 
time. 

Belgium  has  a  population  of  6,000,000,  occupying  11,373  square 
miles,  while  Holland,  or  the  Netherlands  as  it  is  now  called,  has  a  popu 
lation  of  4,451,000,  with  an  area  of  12,680  square  miles. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


In  1890  the  foreign  trade  of  Belgium  was  as  follows: 

Imports, $615,515,600 

Exports, 568,983,300 

Of  this  $307,200,000  represents  imports  for  consumption  and  $274,- 
000,000  the  exports  of  Belgian  produce  and  manufacture.  The  remain- 
der is  transit  trade  and  shows  what  an  immense  depot  for  distribution 
Belgium  has  become.  And  yet  the  part  contributed  by  the  Belgians  in 
proportion  to  the  population  is  remarkable,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  fol- 
lowing compilation  for  the  year  1892: 

Number  of  mines,      1,631 

Workmen, 29,012 

Iron  ore  produced,  tons 209,943 

Coal 19,583,000 

Pig  iron 753.268 

Manufactured  iron, 479.0°° 

Steel  ingots, 260,037 

Steel  rails, 208,261 

Sugar  manufacturing  establishments, 122 

Production  of  raw  sugar,  pounds, 64,000,000 

Refineries, 36 

Output  of  refineries,  pounds, 2,000,000 

The  exports  of  leading  products  in  1892  is  seen  from  the  following: 

Cereals  and  flour,             |24,ooo,ooo 

Yarns,   wool,  linen,  etc., •    .  22,600,000 

Machinery,      19,000,000 

Raw  textiles 17,500,000 

Tissues,  cotton,  wool,  etc 13,300,000 

Iron  and  steel,       15,500,000 

Qlass, 9,000,000 

About  one-fifth  of  the  population  are  agriculturists.  The  total  value 
of  agricultural  products  in  1880  (the  latest  authoritative  statistics)  was 
$282,000,000  and  of  animal  produce  $48,000,000.  Wheat,  oats  and  rye 
form  the  principal  .staples,  while  to  vegetables,  sugar  beet,  flax  and  other 
productions  more  or  less  attention  is  given. 

In  Holland  no  official  returns  are  made  of  the  value  of  goods,  only 
of  the  weight.     In  1892  the  returns  were  as  follows: 


Imports 6,451,000,000 

Exports, 2,956,000,000 

In  1892  the  value  of  exports  of  home  production  amounted  to  about 
$283,500,000,  while  the  imports  for  consumption  were  valued  at 
$325,000,000.  In  1892  the  exports  of  food  products  amounted  to 
$120,000,000;  raw  materials,    $60,000,000,    and  manufactureil   products 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


$80,000,000.      The  products  of  agriculture  are  much  the  same  as  in  Bel- 
gium.    The  exports  of  the  principal  products  in  1892,  were  as  follows: 


Wheat •    .    .    .  $22,000,000 

Flour, 3,000,000 

Rye,      6,500,000 


Barley, 

Oats, 

Flax, 


$3, 200, 000 
1 ,  700, 000 
7,500,000 


Enough  has  been  shown  of  the  productive  capacity'  of  Belgium  and 
Holland  to  dissipate  all  free  trade  notions  that  any  increased  market  for 
American  products  will  be  found  in  either  country.  Even  if  the  Belgians, 
and  Hollanders  were  not  so  capable  of  supplying  their  own  wants  as  they 
have  proven  themselves  to  be,  the  American  farmer  and  artisan  could 
hardly  expect  to  compete  in  those  markets  with  the  workmen  of  Eng- 
land, Germany  and  Austria.  But  we  find  Belgium  and  Holland  making 
and  exporting  the  very  things  we  should  like  to  sell  them.  Moreover  a 
still  greater  production,  with  additional  employment  of  labor  at  increased 
prices,  is  resulting  from  the  new  tariff  law  that  went  into  operation  July 
14,  1895.  We  find,  however,  that  though  wages  have  risen  considerably 
in  recent  years,  yet  they  are  still  only  about  one-fourth  or  one-fifth  of 
American  wages.  The  inevitable  conclusion  is  then,  as  it  has  been  in 
all  European  countries,  that  there  is  no  further  market  than  we  now 
possess  unless  American  wages  descend  to  their  level,  and  our  workmen 
are  willing  to  live  on  scanty  food. 

Switzerland. 

"Switzerland,"  says  M.  Eavollee,  "is  the  country  where  poverty  is 
the  rarest  and  where  wealth  is  most  equally  distributed  among  all  classes 
of  society."  With  a  population  of  less  than  3,000,000  and  an  area  of 
16,000  square  miles,  less  than  the  States  of  Vermont  and  New  Hampshire 
combined,  Switzerland  has  a  foreign  trade  amounting  in  1891  to  $349,000-, 
000,  of  which  about  two-fifths  were  exports.  In  1892  some  of  her  prin- 
cipal exports  were  as  follows: 

Silks, jt4i, 000,000  I   Food  stuffs |i6, 000,000    • 

Cottons, 26,000,000      Clocks  and  watches,    .    .     18,000,000 

Woolens,         3,000,000  I   Machinery  and  carriages,     4,000,000 

[893,   Switzerland    had   4606    factories   divided    as 


On  January    i, 
follows : 

Textiles 

Leather, 

Food, 

Chemical 

Wood, 

Metals, 

Paper  and  printing. 
Building 


Establishments. 

■  ■  ■  1,943 

.  .  .      115 

.  .  .     410 

.  .  .      115 

.  ■  ■  7,234 

.  ■  ■     547 

.  .  .     272 

.  .  .      102 


Hands  Employed. 
89,901 

6,445 
10, 702 

2,696 

5,048 
33,056 

7,356 

2,751 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


These  industries  are  fully  protected  bj-  customs  duties.  In  fact  the 
position  that  Switzerland  holds  to-day  as  one  of  the  great  producing  and 
manufacturing  centres,  though  having  no  more  inhabitants  than  New 
York  City  and  Brooklyn,  is  due  to  the  excellent  system  of  protective  tariffs 
which  this  country  has  enjoyed  since  the  Confederation  of  1848,  and 
especially  since  the  general  tariff  revisions  of  1884,  1887  and  1892. 
Commercial  treaties  are  also  in  force  with  several  countries. 

The  ingenuity  of  the  people,  the  industry  and  thrift  displayed  by 
all  classes,  -encouraged  by  protection  to  their  labor,  render  the  condition 
of  the  Swiss  workman  the  most  enviable  in  Europe.  Relations  between 
employer  and  employee,  while  not  without  some  occasional  friction,  are, 
however,  more  satisfactory  to  both,  than  can  be  found  elsewhere  in 
Europe.  Wages  are  not  so  high  as  in  England, 'but  they  approach  closely 
those  of  Germany  and  France.  The  cost  of  living  is  such,  however,  that 
though  much  of  their  food  .stuffs  are  imported,  yet  the  savings  of  the 
laboring  classes  are  enormous,  being  about  $50  per  capita  and  far  in  excess 
of  those  in  any  other  country  of  Europe.  As  an  instance  of  the  extent  to 
which  division  of  labor  is  carried  it  may  be  mentioned  that  watch-making 
is  enumerated  under  fifty-three  distinct  branches,  in  each  of  which  a  work- 
man attains  to  the  highest  degree  of  skill.  The  same  is  seen  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  music-boxes  and  other  wares  in  which  the  Swi.ss  have  become 
famous. 

Agriculture  is  carried  on  to  a  considerable  extent,  but  a  large  pro- 
portion of  food  stuffs  is  imported.  The  chief  industry  -is  the  manufac- 
ture of  chee.se  and  milk.  The  value  of  livestock  exceeds  $100,000,000. 
Wheat,  rye,  oats  and  potatoes  are  the  chief  crops,  and  in  some  years  as 
much  as  25,000,000  gallons  of  wine  is  produced.  When  it  is  considered 
that  we  bought  from  Switzerland  to  the  amount  of  $16,010,728  in  1894, 
and  only  sold  her  $7391  worth,  or  one  two-thousandth  part  of  what  we 
bought,  we  must  exclude  this  republic  from  the  markets  to  be  gained  by 
American  farmers  and  manufacturers.  To  be  sure  Switzerland  is  one  of 
the  great  markets  of  the  world,  but  the  grain  of  Russia  and  Austria  is 
too  near,  as  are  the  wares  of  France  and  Germany,  for  us  to  compete, 
unless,  as  the  free  trader  would  have  it,  our  wages  are  reduced  to  the 
level  of  tho.se  paid  on  the  Continent. 

Di-:n-.m.\rk. 

The  tariff  of  Deinnark  is  similar  to  that  of  Belgium.  Germany  has 
of  late  crowded  out  English  wares  to  a  large  extent  in  the  Danish  market, 
although  the  imports  have  decreased  in  recent  years  owing  to  the  increased 
home  production.  Every  year  the  exports  are  larger,  and  with  increasing 
rates  of  wages  and  general  growth  of  industries  little  Denmark  bids  fair 
to  become  more  and  more  independent  of  other  countries. 


AUSTBJA-IIUXGARr,  ITALY,  ETC. 


The  leading  agricultural  crops  in  1891  were  as  follows: 

Bushels. 

Oats, 33.059.265 

Barley 22,571,447 

Rye, 18,677,262 

Wheat, 4,514,152 

Potatoes "  1,^,913,122 

Other  roots,      ^5. 453.952 

Besides  these  Denmark  produces  vegetables,  hay  and  clover.  In 
1S88  there  were  in  Denmark  proper  4,000,000  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  goats 
and  swine.  In  1892,  19,570  tons  of  beet  sugarwere  produced  andtheout- 
put  of  brandy  was  7,435,388  gallons. 

Our  chief  exports  to  Denmark  are  corn,  wheat,  oil  and  lard,  and  yet 
she  buys  but  a  small  part  of  her  food  and  provisions  from  us  and  is  likely 
to  buj'  less  rather  than  more.  We  cannot  compete  with  Germany  in 
supplying  her  with  manufactured  goods.  Of  her  $20,000,000  worth  of 
manufactured  goods  imported  we  .supply  only  about  a  quarter  of  a  million. 
We  buy  only  $200,000  worth  of  her  products.  We  shall,  perhaps, 
continue  to  send  her  a  little  corn,  wheat,  oil  and  lard,  though  the  quantity 
is  more  likely  to  decline  than  increa.se.  At  present  our  share  of  her  imports 
is  only  about  one-twentieth. 

NoRw.w  AND  Sweden. 

The  industrial  situation  of  Sweden  and  Norway  cannot  be  better 
stated  than  in  the  words  of  British  Consul  Hay,  who  calls  attention  in  a 
recent  report  to : 

1.  The  marked  development  of  native  industries,  shielded  by  protective  duties. 

2.  Competition  of  German,  Belgian  and  even  Dutch  manufactures. 

3.  The  development  of  direct  communication  by  sea  between  Svfeden  and  other 
countries,  which  is  gradually  diminishing  the  importation  of  transit  goods  from 
England. 

The  direct  or  home  trade  has  shown  wonderful  development  in  recent 
years.  For  instance,  the  demand  for  locomotives  and  other  railroad 
supplies  formerly  imported  from  Great  Britain  is  now  fully  met  b>-  home 
manufacturers.  The  same  is  true  of  almost  all  machinery  and  agricul- 
tural implements.  Some  iron  goods  are  still  imported,  but  they  have  of 
late  years  been  of  Belgian  and  German  make  instead  of  coming  from 
Great  Britain.  Sweden  and  Norwaj'  are  now  enjoying  a  thoroughly 
protective  tariff,  perhaps,  on  the  whole,  more  protective  than  that  of  any 
other  European  country.  The  protection  of  years  gave  way  to  lower 
duties  in  both  countries  for  several  years  preceding  1890,  but  duties  were 
gradually  increased  till  in  1892  was  enacted  what  has  been  termed  the 
"McKinley  bill  of  Sweden." 


PROTiCTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


The  exports  of  Sweden  in  1891  amounted  to  about  $75,000,000,  of 
which  more  than  two-fifths  were  timber  and  one-fifth  was  live  animals  and 
animal  food.  The  imports  in  1891  amounted  to  about  $85,000,000,  con- 
sisting mostly  of  coal,  textiles,  raw  materials  for  textiles  and  colonial 
wares.  The  exports  of  Norway  in  1891  amounted  to  $30,000,000,  being 
mostly  timber  and  animal  food,  while  the  imports  of  the  same  year 
amounted  to  about  $55,000,000,  a  large  part  of  which  was  food  stuffs. 

The  trade  of  both  Norway  and  Sweden  with  the  United  States  shows 
that  we  sold  them  in  1894  a  little  over  $4,000,000  worth  of  merchandise, 
third  of  which  was  cotton  and  oils,  while  we  bought  of  them  $3,000,000 
worth,  over  one-third  of  which  was  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel  and 
nearly  one-fourth  wood  pulp.  To  Sweden  and  Norway  then,  least  of  all 
the  countries  of  Europe,  can  we  look  for  a  market.  In  fact  our  exports 
are  falling  off  under  the  operation  of  their  revised  tariff  law  of  1892. 
They  are  practicing  our  own  methods  of  protecting  and  promoting  home 
industries  with  great  success.  Where  England  cannot  hold  a  market 
for  manufactures,  it  is  hardly  likely  we  are  going  to  gain  one,  and  as  for 
food  stuffs  Russia  and  Austria  and  France  are  too  near  for  us  to  compete 
with  their  resources  and  low  rates  of  wages. 

Sp.\in  and  Portugal. 

The  early  maritime  discoveries  of  the  Spani-sh  and  Portuguese  gave 
them  great  wealth  which,  however,  was  squandered  almost  as  quickly  as 
it  was  gained.  Large  flocks  of  sheep  were  owned  and  even  in  the  tenth 
century  the  Moors  cultivated  cotton,  sugar  and  rice,  and  were  producers 
of  silk.  Cordova,  Seville  and  Grenada  were  famous  for  their  fabrics  and 
arms.  Down  to  the  time  of  Colbert  France  got  her  fine  cloths  from  Spain. 
In  168 1  such  bounties  and  protection  were  granted  that  in  1684  Spain  and 
Portugal  were  supplying  all  their  own  wants  and  prohibiting  all  foreign 
cloth.  This  condition,  however,  la.sted  but  nineteen  years,  when  England 
persuaded  Portugal  to  admit  her  manufactures,  in  return  for  lower  duties 
on  Portuguese  wines.  The  complete  ruin  of  Portuguese  manufactures  fol- 
lowed, from  which  they  have  never  recovered. 

For  some  time  preceding  1859,  however,  both  Spain  and  Portugal 
levied  high  customs  duties  on  most  importations.  Both  countries  reduced 
their  duties  somewhat  between  1859  and  1879,  but  since  1882  the  tendency 
has  been  to  protect  all  their  industries.  It  may  be  said  that  neither 
Spain  nor  Portugal  has  any  free  list.  Every  article  of  commercial  value 
is  subject  to  duty.  The  tariffs  under  which  both  countries  are  operating 
are  of  recent  revision.  Commercial  treaties  exi.st  with  other  countries, 
but  to  a  mutual  and  not  a  one-sided  advantage.  The  one  great  industry 
of  Spain  at  present  is  wine-making.  Of  her  total  exports  nearly  one- 
fourth  is  wine.  Over  5,000,000  acres  are  under  vines,  and  in  i8go  the 
production  of  wine  was  638,000,000  gallons.      In  addition  large  quantities 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


of  olives,  oranges,  raisins  and  nuts  are  raised  and  exported.  Wheat, 
ba^le5^  r)'e,  corn,  flax,  hemp  and  pulse  are  the  leading  crops.  The 
annual  value  of  minerals  amounts  to  about  $35,000,000,  and  next  to  wines 
form  the  most  important  export.  Comparatively  few  manufactures  are 
exported,  but  Spain  is  steadilj'  increasing  her  productive  abilitj'  and 
capacity  and  is  well-nigh  equipped  to  supply  her  own  wants  in  all  neces- 
sary wares.  Of  the  imports  raw  cotton  is  double  in  value  that  of  any 
other  single  commodity,  machinery'  being  second  in  importance. 

Our  exports  to  Spain  in  1894  amounted  to  $13,114,000  of  which 
$9,000,000  was  raw  cotton  and  $1,634,000  was  tobacco,  leaving  less  than 
$2,500,000  for  all  else,  while  we  bought  from  her  $4,250,000  worth  of 
merchandise.  To  Portugal  we  sent  $5,200,000  of  exports  in  1894,  of 
which  $4, 100,000  was  wheat.  From  her  we  bought  $2,000,000  worth,  of 
which  $1,600,000  was  cork  and  rubber.  With  the  exception  of  ovir  cot- 
ton and  tobacco,  then,  it  is  seen  how  insignificant  is  our  trade  with  Spain 
and  Portugal.  Even  the  $4,000,000  worth  of  wheat  sent  to  Portugal  is 
$1,000,000  more  than  the  average,  and  is  not  likely  to  increase  when  we 
consider  the  inroads  the  wheat  of  Russia  and  the  Argentine  Republic  is 
making  into  EuropeaTi  markets.  We  must  add  these  two  countries  then 
to  those  already  described  as  unlikely  to  furnish  any  increase  of  markets 
for  American  grain  or  manufactures,  always  reserving  the  point  that  we 
can,  at  any  time,  have  a  chance  if  our  workmen  are  willing  to  work  for 
the  wages  and  adopt  the  manner  of  living  found  in  other  parts  of  the 
world. 

Other  Countries. 

In  the  treatment  of  Eastern  countries  space  will  not  permit  a  dis- 
cussion of  their  commercial  history,  and  we  must  confine  ourselves  to 
a  consideration  of  the  question  how  far  and  under  what  conditions  these 
countries  are  likely  to  aflford  us  a  market  for  our  goods.  With  Turke)-, 
Greece,  Servia  and  Roumania  our  trade  is  too  insignificant  to  be  taken 
into  account.  As  to  Asiatic  countries  generally  the  following  table  shows 
the  condition  of  our  trade : 

Merchandise  Trade  with  Asi.\tic  Countries  in  1S94. 

Imports  from  Exports  to 

China, |i7, 135,028  J5, 862,426 

British  India  and  East  Indies, 14,829,661  4,329,103 

Dutch  East  Indies, 11,278,725  1,722,876 

French  East  Indies, nothing.  193,049 

Hong  Kong, 892,511  4,209,847 

Japan, 19,426,522  3,986,815 

Russia  in  Asia, 355,476  163,855 

Turkey  in  Asia,      2,204,973  107,162 

All  others, 63,501  297,628 

Total 166,787,497      $21,872,761' 

*  Compiled  from  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES'. 


We  buy  from  them  three  times  as  much  as  we  sell  them.  Of  the  total 
exports  shown  above  over  $12,000,000  represents  oils,  and  only  about 
$2,000,000  bread  stuffs. 

Africa  can  be  treated  in  the  same  way  as  Asia,  and  our  trade  in  1894 
is  shown  as  follows  : 


Portuguese  Africa 

British  Africa,      

French  Africa, 

Canary  Islands 

Liberia i2,Soo 

Madagascar 210,729 

Egypt  and  TripoH, 2,208,029 

All  others 456.799 


uports  from 

$4,680 
464,087 

99,099 

23,123 


Exports  to 
fS5,54i 
3.972,982 
215,947 
203,133 
32,631 
42,920 
181,252 
178,313 


$8,055,032 

316,791 

3,217,713 

145,466 

$11,735,002 


Total,      $3. 479.336  $4,912,719 

To  these  countries  we  sell  a  million  and  a  half  more  than  we  buy  from 
them,  but  that  amount  is  represented  by  spirits,  rum,  oils  and  tobacco. 

Our  imports  and  our  exports  to  the  diiferent  parts  of  Oceanica,  in 
1894,  were  as  follows: 

Imports  from 

British  Australasia, $4,017,025 

French  Oceanica 367,239 

Hawaiian  Islands, 10,065,317 

Philippine  Islands, 7,008,342 

Total, $21,457,923 

As  will  be  seen  our  principal  sales  are  to  the  British  colonies  in 
Australia.  These,  however,  are  declining,  having  been  over  $13,000,000  in 
1 89 1.  For  years  Victoria  has  had  a  protective  tariff  and  has  largely  pros- 
pered under  such  duties,  and  now  New  South  Wales  has  also  adopted 
protection.  Our  sales  to  both  these  countries  are  not  likely  to  increase. 
The  progress  made  by  Victoria  under  protection  has  been  similar  to  our 
own.  Wages,  in  some  instances,  are  as  high  and  the  savings  and  wealth 
of  the  people  are  even  higher  per  capita  than  ours. 

Canada  and  Other  American  Countries. 
J.  Beaufort  Hurlburt  in  the  chapter  devoted  to  Canada,  in  his  "  Pro- 
tection and  Free  Trade,"  said  : 

The  chief  home  of  manufactures  and  commerce  on  this  continent  will,  we  believe, 
in  time  be  in  Canada.  The  physical  features  of  the  country,  the  innumerable  streams 
and  waterfalls,  the  rich  mineral  resources,  the  invigorating  climate,  point  to  Canada 
in  the  new  as  to  the  Northern  half  of  Europe  in  the  old  world  as  the  centre  of  the 
chief  industries,  of  commerce,  of  wealth  and  power. 

While  the  above  may  provoke  a  smile  in  the  United  States,  yet  the 
over-sanguinenes.s  of  Mr.  Hurlburt  is  pardonable.  Hi.story  shows  that 
countries  are  settled  and  that  industrial   progress  is  from  south   to   nortli. 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


There  is  no  doubt  of  the  ability  of  our  Canadian  neighbor,  of  his  health}' 
condition,  ef  his  vigor  and  endurance,  and  of  his  fitness  to  compete  with 
the  rest  of  mankind.  He  is  an  American,  and  whether  Canada  is  one  day 
annexed  to  the  United  States,  or,  as  Hurlburt  would  have  it,  the  United 
States  is  joined  to  Canada,  the  day  will  no  doubt  come  when  the  people 
of  Canada  and  the  States  will  be  members  of  the  same  political  and 
industrial  homestead. 

The  first  duties  on  imported  goods  imposed  by  Canada  were  in  1849, 
when  a  duty  of  I2j4  per  cent  was  levied  on  most  goods,  but  only  2}^  per 
cent  on  bar  and  heavy  iron.  It  %vas  purely  a  revenue  duty.  In  1856  the 
duty  was  raised  to  15  per  cent  on  general  merchandise,  and  manufactures 
of  leather  and  India  rubber  were  made  subject  to  a  duty  of  20  per 
cent.  It  was  not  till  1858  that  a  tariff  law  was  enacted  in  the  interest  of 
protection.  In  that  year  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  on  general  merchandise  was 
levied,  and  25  per  cent  on  manufactures  of  leather,  boots  and  shoes,  har- 
ness, saddlery  and  certain  wearing  apparel.  In  the  following  year  duties 
were  raised  on  many  goods  which  were  classified  under  customs  rates  of 
100,  40,  35,  30,  25,  15  and  10  percent.  In  1866-67  '^he  duties  of  1858-59 
were  lowered,  and  in  1874  the  tariff  consisted  almost  wholly  of  duties  for 
revenue  only.  The  act  of  March,  1879,  was  really  the  first  Canadian 
tariff  that  gave  thorough  protection  to  home  industries.  The  beneficial 
results  were  not  only  immediate  but  most  significant.  The  Finance  Min- 
ister in  his  Budget  speech  of  the  twenty-fourth  of  February,  1882,  three 
years  after  the  adoption  of  protection,  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
while  there  had  been  a  deficit  during  the  five  years  preceding  the  act  of 
1879,  of  $5,491,259,  in  the  two  years  following  the  act  there  was  collected 
$2,900,000  more  than  was  necessary  for  expenditures.     He  said  : 

That  was  the  surplus  for  the  two  years  and  having  been  used  in  the  reduction  of 

the  debt,  diminished  our  taxation  for  all  time  to  come When  I  was  asked 

by  an  honorable  member  opposite  in  1879,  what  demand  the  government  expected  to 
create  for  Nova  Scotia  coal  by  the  operation  of  the  tariff,  I  stated  that  probably  within 
a  short  time  the  consumption  of  Nova  Scotia  coal  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada  would 
increase  to  the  extent  of  4,000,000  tons.  I  did  not  suppose,  Mr.  Speaker,  sanguine  as 
I  was  with  reference  to  the  eiTect  of  this  tariff,  that  in  three  years,  by  the  increased 
demand  for  steam  power,  it  would  make  a  demand  which  would  require  over  4,000,- 
000  to  meet  it ;  but  we  find  that  these  industries  have  been  growing  up  all  over 
the  country  to  such  an  extent  that  it  has  required  more  than  4,000,000  tons  more  from 
the  Nova  Scotia  mines,  and  has  also  caused  a  largely  increased  amount  to  be  imported 
from  the  United  States  as  well. 

He  then  described  the  increase  of  manufacturing  for  the  three  years, 
showing  that  in  the  cotton,  leather  and  woolen  manufactures  alone,  the 
increase  had  amounted  to  $5,500,000  ;  that  there  was  an  increase  of  17 
per  cent  in  the  number  of  employees,  and  that  while  in  135  factories  out 
of  430  \'isited,  wages  remained  the  same,  yet  instead  of  working  on  short 
time  the  laborers  were  now  working  full  time,  while  in  277  factories  wages 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 

had  been  increased  from  5  to  35  per  cent.      "  The  rate  of  wages,"  said  he, 
has  been  generally  increased  throughout  the  Dominion." 

Referring  to  the  question  of  prices  he  showed  conclusively  that  cotton 
id  woolens  had  not  advanced  in  price  but,  on  the  contrary',  had  in 
numerous  cases  fallen  in  price  since  1878.  Canadian  free  traders,  like 
those  of  the  United  States  in  1892,  tried  to  circulate  the  idea  of  so-called 
'  McKinley  prices."  They  told  the  farmer  that  out  of  the  nine  or  twelve 
yards  of  dress  goods  bought  for  his  wife,  three  or  four  yards  would  have  to 
be  sent  to  Ottawa.  But  the  farmer's  wife  on  opening  the  package  found 
the  whole  number  of  yards  bought,  and  at  a  lower  price  than  had  been  paid 
for  the  same  goods  under  free  trade.  In  hats  and  caps  the  same  result  was 
proven,  a  larger  production,  increased  employment  and  lower  prices  to  the 
consumer.  "But,"  said  the  Canadian,  "if  wages  are  higher  how  can 
prices  be  lower?"  To  this  the  minister  replied  by  quoting  a  manufac- 
turer whom  he  had  asked  the  same  question: 

The  fact  is  we  used  to  have  to  spend  a  large  sum  in  employing  runners  to  go 
through  the  countr}'  to  make  sales,  but  now  we  have  doubled  our  production,  have 
orders  ahead,  our  expenses  of  managemeut  have  not  increased,  we  can  sell  at  smaller 
profits  than  we  could  before,  and  }et,  in  consequence  of  the  increased  production,  we 
have  larger  profits  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

The  Minister  of  Finance  then  showed  the  decreased  price  of  various 
other  articles.  Plows  were  selling  at  15  per  cent  less  than  in  1878.  All 
agricultural  implements  from  5  to  20  per  cent  less,  and  the  business  had 
increased  four-fold  in  the  three  years.  Sewing  machines  were  reduced  in 
price  by  ten  dollars,  and  the  business  trebled.  Boots  and  shoes  were  cheaper, 
and  the  price  of  factor>'  labor  higher.  Nails  were  lower,  and  so  were  count- 
less other  articles  of  necessity  and  daily  use.  In  the  few  cases  where  prices 
remained  the  same  or  had  advanced  a  trifle,  the  compensation  of  higher 
wages  was  more  than  equivalent.  Especially  was  the  condition  of  the 
farmer  improved.  Everything  he  had  to  buy,  whether  of  clothing  or 
implements,  was  lower,  while  his  market  was  increased  in  some  instances 
faster  than  he  could  supply  it. 

It  was  shown  that  there  were  at  least  100,000  more  employed  people 
to  be  fed  in  1882  than  in  1879.  The  people  had  plenty  of  money  to  buy 
the  farmers'  produce  and  they  got  their  own  prices  instead  of  standing 
around  the  markets  all  day  as  they  did  in  1879,  sometimes  taking  back 
home  the  vegetables  they  could  get  no  price  at  all  for.  Ten  million  bushels 
more  of  Canadian  grain  were  consumed  in  Canada  in  the  first  two  years  of 
protection  than  in  the  last  two  years  of  free  trade.  But  the  benefits  of 
protection  in  Canada  at  the  outset  of  the  new  national  policy  as  it  was 
called  were  not  confined  to  individuals.  In  1 87S  the  securities  of  New  South 
Wales  were  the  highest  colonial  securities  in  the  Engli.sh  market  and  were 
4  or  5  per  cent  above  Canadian.     Two  years  after  protection   had  been 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


adopted  Canadian  4  per  cents  had  increased  from  89  to  104,  and  were  i 
per  cent  above  those  of  New  South  Wales.  In  another  year  they  had 
increased  to  2  per  cent  above  New  South  Wales  and  stood  higher  than 
any  other  colonial  security  offered  in  the  English  market.  Bank  stock 
was  worth  $20,000,000  more  in  1882  than  in  1879.  The  laborer  was 
getting  higher  wages,  the  manufacturer  was  making  more  profits,  the 
farmer  had  a  demand  at  good  prices  for  all  his  produce, the  merchant  had 
doubled  his  business  and  the  government  credit  and  finances  were  in  a 
most  satisfactory  condition. 

Said  the  Minister  of  Finance  in  concluding  the  speech  already  quoted 
from: 

Adding  the  manufactures  from  the  various  factories  that  are  sending  their  pro- 
ducts all  over  the  Dominion,  it  will  be  found  that  the  railway  proprietors  have  a  large 
interest  in  this  new  polic}-.  Ever}-  interest  in  the  country  has  been,  in  ray  judgment, 
largely  and  materially  benefited.  This  policy,  supplemented  by  our  legislation  secur- 
ing the  rapid  construction  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway,  has  combined  to  place 
us  in  the  enviable  position  we  now  occupy — the  best  position  of  any  people  on  the  face 
of  the  earth. 

To-day  the  Dominion  of  Canada  comprises  an  area  of  nearly  three 
and  a  half  million  of  square  miles,  almost  equal  to  that  of  the  United 
States,  with  a  population  of  about  5,000,000. 

Agriculture  is  the  chief  industry,  the  crops  for  1890  being  as  fol- 
lows ; 


Crops.  Bushels. 

Wheat 44,144,779 

Barley, 17,152,438 

Oats 82,514,513 

Potatoes, 52,407,677 


Crops.  Bushels. 

Rye, 1,328,262 

Peas  and  beans,    .    .  15,514,841 
Hay,  tons,      ....    7,604,096 


Taking  the  livestock  as  regards  ratio  to  population,  Canada  com- 
pares favorably  with  the  United  States.  The  fisheries  of  British  North 
America  are,  perhaps,  the  most  important  and  extensive  in  the  world, 
reaching  a  value  of  nearly  $25,000,000  annually.  The  wealth  per  capita 
is  almost  equal  to  that  of  the  United  States. 

Protection  is  extended  to  agriculture  as  well  as  to  manufactures,  and 
in  1894  the  foreign  trade  of  Canada  was  as  follows: 

Exports,      $117,524,949 

Imports, 123,474,940 

Commerce  with  the  United  States  is  second  only  to  that  with  the 
United  Kingdom,  and  for  several  j^ears  preceding  1892,  trade  with  us 
exceeded  that  with  the  United  Kingdom. 

Since  1890  our  imports  have  fallen  off  one-third,  while  our  exports 
have  advanced  about  one-third.  In  1894  we  sold  the  Canadians  $44,636,914 
worth  of  domestic  merchandise  and  bought  from  them  $22,922,030  worth. 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


We  sold  them  $9,000,000  worth  of  coal;  $4,280,000  worth  of  corn; 
$1,000,000  worth  of  tobacco;  $4,000,000  worth  of  wheat  and  wheat  flour, 
and  $4,000,000  worth  of  cotton  and  cotton  goods.  We  bought  $1 ,400,000 
worth  of  bread  stuffs  and  $6,000,000  worth  of  lumber. 

Canada  has  prospered  so  well  under  her  protective  tariff  that  she 
is  not  likely  to  become  a  much  greater  market  for  our  products.  We 
.shall,  no  doubt,  continue  to  exchange  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  goods 
with  her  annually,  but  as  her  own  resources  and  capabilities  increase  she 
will  become  more  and  more  independent  and  able  to  supplj-  her  own 
wants.     As  regards  the  rest  of  America  to  the  north,  our  trade  is  as  follows: 

Imports  from  Exports  to 

Nova  .Scotia,  New  Brunswick,  etc. ,   ....    14.474,653  $3>756.6o5 

British  Columbia 3.394.233  i, 647.351 

Newfoundland  and  Labrador, 535. Si5  1.641,019 

Going  now  to  the  south  of  us  in  both  North  and  South  America,  we 
find  our  trade,  in  1894,  was  as  follows: 

Imports  from  Exports  to 

Bermuda $444,595  1928,876 

British  Honduras "2.959  3'6.ii7 

Costa  Rica, 2,287,384  961,216 

Guatemala, 2,225,586  1,610,509 

Honduras, 765,138  537,463 

Nicaragua, 1,564,472  814,012 

Salvador 2,926,469  1,059,292 

Miguelan  Islands,  Langley  and  St.  Pierre 

Islands,      1 17-255  •    i49,902 

British  West  Indies, 13,017,178  8,387,220 

Danish  West  Indies 5",970  579,977 

Dutch  West  Indies,     .    .        62,687  595,596 

French  West  Indies, 18,336  1,822,808 

Hayti 840,046  5,342,630 

Santo  Domingo 3,200,852  1,715,782 

Mexico,      28,727,006  12,441,805 

Cuba,      75,678,261  19.855,237 

Puerto  Rico, 3,135.634  2,705,646 

Argentine  Republic 3,497,03°  4.593.41* 

Bolivia nothing.  10,071 

Brazil, 79,360,159  13,827,914 

Chili 3.536.197  2,262,011 

Colombia, 2,234,787  2,702,106 

Ecuador 816,484  759.474 

British  Guiana 4,223,970  2,360,938 

Dutch  Guiana, 1,078,541  381.641 

French  Guiana, 23,400  98,837 

Paraguay 1,001  none. 

Peru 491. 3S4  586,761 

Uruguay,       i,4'9.573  971.547 

Venezuela, 3,464,481  4,089,732 

Total 1229,837,735        I93.478.538 


AUSTRIA-HVNGABY,  ITALY,  ETC. 

Here  we  find  countries  from  which  we  buy  considerably  more  than 
twice  as  much  as  we  sell  to  them.  Here  is  the  great  market  for  our  sur- 
plus food  stuffs  and  manufactures.  Instead  of  hunting  the  world  over, 
instead  of  going  to  Africa,  Asia  and  the  islands  of  the  sea,  we  enjoy  the 
advantage  of  having  near  at  hand  a  vast  territory  which  needs  our  pro- 
ductions. Mr.  Harrison  and  his  Cabhiet  saw  this  great  advantage  and, 
with  the  co-operation  of  the  Fifty-second  Congress,  brought  about  such 
legislation  as  bade  fair  to  secure  these  markets  with  no  sacrifice  to  our  own 
interests.  England  has  for  centuries  gained  markets  by  force.  We  gained 
these  markets  by  diplomacy  only  to  have  them  taken  away  by  the  free 
traders  of  the  following  Congress.  The  value  of  these  markets  and  the 
subject  of  reciprocity  will  be  treated  hereafter. 

Conclusions. 

The  brief  treatment  of  the  tariff  histor^^  industrial  development, 
resources  and  economic  conditions  of  the  countries  mentioned  in  this  part 
of  our  work  scarcely  makes  a  summary  necessary.  Yet  the  experience  of 
these  nations  during  the  past  fifty  years  has  developed  so  many  facts  which 
prove  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  of  protection  that  they  deserve  more  than 
a  passing  notice.  The  growth  of  manufacturing  in  France,  Prussia, 
Germany,  Austria,  and,  in  fact,  in  all  of  these  nations,  had  its  beginning 
with  the  adoption  of  protective  regulations.  The  inauguration  of  this 
policy  in  every  instance  brought  stability  and  confidence  to  their  busi- 
ness interests.  Its  effect  as  a  stimulating  agency  in  encouraging  and  induc- 
ing the  people  to  become  artisans  and  manufacturers  cannot  be  overesti- 
mated. That  the  industrial  activity  of  these  nations  is  associated  with  the 
adoption  of  protection  is  a  fact  in  the  commercial  history  of  the  world 
which  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  in  determining  the  importance  to  be 
attached  to  the  policy  of  protection  as  the  best  means  of  promoting  the 
industrial  welfare  of  a  nation.  The  advocates  of  free  trade  can  no  longer 
say  that  the  progress  made  by  these  nations  was  in  spite  of  protection  or 
that  the  same  or  better  results  would  have  followed  the  policy  of  free  com- 
petition oi  free  trade.  Thej^  have  all  tried  free  trade  or  a  low  tariff.  The 
business  depressions  and  injuries  inflicted  on  the  industries  of  Germany 
upon  the  return  to  free  trade  during  the  thirteen  years  between  1865  and 
1879  have  been  pointed  out.  That  this  was  a  most  disastrous  period  there 
is  not  the  slightest  question.  A  similar  result  followed  a  departure  from 
protection  by  Russia  and  every  other  C9untr>'  which  has  attempted  to 
depart  from  the  policy  of  developing  and  fostering  its  domestic  resources. 
Even  the  slight  reduction  of  duties  in  France  placed  a  check  on  many 
industries.  The  sudden  and  rapid  expan.sion  of  industries  immediately 
following  an  increase  in  protective  tariffs  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Germany, 
Austria,  Russia,  France,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  and,  in  fact,  in  all 
countries   during  the   past   twenty-five   years,   affords  the  most  striking 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


example  of  the  universal  benefits  to  be  derived  from  protection. 
European  countries  have  tried  free  trade,  repudiated  it,  and  returned 
to  protection.  Under  protection  they  have  all  enjoyed  and  are  enjoying 
a  degree  of  prosperity  which  was  proven  to  be  impossible  of  attainment 
under  free  trade.  It  is  the  pronounced  sentiment  of  all  countries  (Eng- 
land excepted),  that  it  is  better  for  a  people  to  provide  for  their  own 
wants  by  the  development  of  domestic  resources,  than  to  purchase  from 
other  nations  things  which  might  be  made  at  home.  This  has  been 
proven  to  be  the  most  wise  and  beneficent  policy  and  the  surest  and  most 
profitable  means  of  advancing  the  material  welfare  of  the  nations  of  the 
world. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  ultimate  purpose  of  Mr.  Cobden  and 
his  associates,  in  abandoning  protection  in  England  and  adopting  the 
policy  of  free  trade,  was  to  induce  other  nations  to  remove  their  tariff 
barriers  and  open  their  markets  to  the  admission  of  British  goods. 
Immediately  after  the  legislation  of  1846,  the  work  of  converting  other 
nations  was  vigorously  entered  upon  by  the  English  people.  Mr.  Cobden 
visited  the  Continent  and  devoted  the  remaining  years  of  his  life  to  the 
task.  Free  trade  parties  were  organized  in  every  part  of  the  world,  sup- 
plied with  literature,  arguments,  and  ideas  from  England.  The  whole 
world  was  thrown  at  once  into  a  discussion  of  economic  questions.  The 
campaign  was  carried  on  in  Europe  for  a  number  of  years  without  any 
material  progress  being  made.  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  Switzerland 
were  fast  adopting  the  use  of  machinery,  building  factories,  educating 
artisans,  and  building  up  rival  industrial  centres,  which  made  protection 
not  only  more  necessarj'  to  their  welfare  and  progress,  but  more  difficult 
to  overthrow.  The  sentiment  in  favor  of  protection  in  Europe  was  found 
to  be  much  stronger  than  Mr.  Cobden  had  expected.  A  most  ingenious 
device  was  hit  upon  by  which  protection  could  be  overthrown  and  free 
trade  established,  without  consulting  the  people,  and  in  fact  in  open 
violation  of  public  sentiment,  simply  by  getting  control  of  the  treaty- 
making  power.  Protection  was  then  assailed  in  Europe,  not  by  open  dis- 
cussion and  debate,  but  by  intrigue  and  diplomacy.  A  system  of 
commercial  treaties  was  carried  into  effect  which  practically  broke  down 
the  tariff  barriers  of  the  Continent.  Great  Britain  by  adopting  free 
trade  had  nothing  to  offer  a  nation  in  order  to  induce  a  reciprocity 
treaty,  consequently  the  scheme  must  be  worked  through  emissaries  in 
foreign  countries.      We  are  informed  by  Yeats  that. 

Free  trade  principles  did  not  make  such  rapid  way  as  did  the  previous 
schemes  of  protection.  The  new  system  asserted  itself  by  economic  argu- 
ments, which,  though  logically  irresistible,  did  not  appeal  so  much  to  the  feelings, 
and  therefore  to  the  convictions,  of  the  people  at  large,  as  did  measures 
for  the  immediate  relief  of  poverty,  such  as  those  of  legislative  protection  of 
industry. 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


The  following  list  of  commercial  treaties  entered  into  between  various 
nations  will  serve  to  show  how  successfully  Cobden's  scheme  was  carried 
out: 


1853,  Austria  w 

th  Prussia, 

for  twelve 

years. 

1S62,  Turkey 

with  Sweden. 

1854,  England 

'     Japan. 

1865,  Zollverein 

"     Belgium. 

1S55,  England 

'     Switzerl 

and. 

1865,  Zollverein 

"     England. 

1 858,  Russia 

'     Japan- 

1865,  Zollverein 

"     Switzerland 

1858,  England 

'     China. 

1865,  Zollverein 

"     Holland. 

1859,  England 

'     Russia. 

1S65,  Holland 

■'     France. 

i860, 

•     China. 

1866,  France 

' '     Austria. 

iS6o,  England 

'     France, 

now  to  terminate. 

1S66,  Zollverein 

"     Austria. 

1S62,  Prussia 

'     France. 

1867,  Austria 

"     Italy. 

The  failure  of  other  nations  to  change  their  policies  convinced 
him  and  his  associates  that  the  most  effective  means  of  paving  the  way  for 
universal  free  trade  was  through  treaty  stipulations.  A  clause  was 
inserted  in  the  commercial  treaties  known  as  "  the  most  favored  nation 
clause,"  by  which  it  was  agreed,  for  instance,  in  the  treaty  between 
Prussia  and  England,  that  British  goods  should  be  admitted  upon  the  same 
terms  or  rates  of  duty  as  those  of  other  nations.  Under  a  treaty  stipula- 
tion of  this  character,  which  had  become  common  to  commercial  treaties 
between  all  nations,  when  a  new  treaty  was  effected  between  nations 
which  stood  in  this  relation  to  other  countries,  under  which  import  duties 
were  reduced  and  more  liberal  trade  relations  established,  Great  Britain 
enjoyed  the  same  advantages  as  those  extended  to  the  contracting  parties. 
Under  such  an  arrangement  the  existing  commercial  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  would  at  once,  by  virtue  of  its  terms,  attach  to  the  lower  rate  of 
duty  thus  established.  By  this  means  a  control  of  the  treaty-making 
powers  of  the  various  nations,  by  Great  Britain,  would  secure  a  great 
advantage  in  the  advancement  of  free  trade.  Mr.  Cobden  had  no  sooner 
hit  upon  this  plan  than  all  free  traders  throughout  the  world  were  co- 
operating with  him  to  undermine  the  protective  policies  of  nations 
through  this  system  of  diplomacy.  The  whole  scheme  is  exposed  by 
Julius  Faucher,  in  an  article  on  "A  New  Commercial  Treaty,"  '  in  which 
he  boasts  of  the  sharp  practice  resorted  to  by  free  traders  in  overthrowing 
protection  in  Europe.  The  first  victim  of  Mr.  Cobden's  sagacity  was  the 
Emperor  of  France.  Louis  Napoleon  became  a  free  trader  during  his 
sojourn  in  England,  before  ascending  the  French  throne.  Through  the 
aid  of  Michel  Chevalier,  the  reciprocity  treaty  heretofore  spoken  of  was 
secured,  under  which  British  goods  were  to  be  admitted  into  France  under 
duties  ranging  from  20  to  30  per  cent,  a  material  reduction  over  former 
rates;  and  French  silks  and  many  other  articles  were  to  be  admitted  into 
England  free  of  duty,  under  the  act  of  parliament  which  removed  all 
protective  tariffs,  while  at  the  same  time  duties  were  reduced  on  the 
import  of  French  wines  and  liquors.     The  prospect  of  capturing  the  French 


'  Cobdeu  Club  Essays, 


1-72,  p.  265. 


rROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


market  was  held  out  as  an  inducement  to  the  manufacturers  of  Germany 
and  other  countries,  as  an  advantage  which  they  were  all  to  share  in 
under  similar  treaties.  France  was  selected  by  Mr.  Cobden  as  the  coun- 
try which  was  to  take  the  lead  and  set  the  example  before  Europe  in  the 
free  trade  movement.     Julius  Faucher  says: 

In  his  idea  she  was  the  ram  that  was  to  jump  over  the  free  trade  stick  to  make 
the  whole  Continental  herd  follow,  lie-  could  not  get  it  out  of  his  head,  because 
fashions  spread  from  Paris  that  opinions  on  legislative  questions  do  so  too.  What  was 
reallv  gained  for  the  free  traders  l3'ing  in  ambush  all  around  the  French  frontier,  was. 
the  alliance  of  the  manufacturers  in  their  respective  countries,  desirous  of  sharing 
with  the  English  manufacturers  the  advantage  of  the  French  market,  as  far  as  it  had 
become  open. 

The  German  free  traders,  however,  were  ambitious  to  establish  uni- 
versal free  trade  and  follow  the  example  of  England  instead  of  France. 
It  appears  that  when  Mr.  Cobden  visited  Germany  he  did  not  have  in 
mind  this  policy  of  reciprocity  treaties,  for  Mr.  Faucher,  speaking  of  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Cobden  at  this  time,  and  one  had  ten  years  later  in 
London,  said: 

I  had  not  quite  so  sanguine  expectations,  but  thought  at  that  time  as  little  of  the 
auxiliary  usefulness  of  commercial  treaties  as  he  did.  The  very  name  ol  them  was 
odious  to  me.  Ten  years  later,  conversing  at  London,  we  found  that  we  had  both 
alike  altered  our  opinion.  There  lay  the  whole  Continent  motionless,  and  America 
too.  All  round  the  horizon  no  encouraging  symptom,  except  the  evident  desire  of  the 
Emperor  Napoleon  to  render  his  people  happy  against  its  own  will,  and  beyond  its 
own  comprehension. 

A  resort  to  intrigue  and  diplomacy  after  the  confidence  of  the  people 
in  protection  had  remained  un.shaken,  through  open  discussion,  was  most 
discreditable.  The  great  free  trade  movement  which  had  been  forced  into 
public  notice  with  so  much  noise,  conjecture,  prophecy  and  extra\'agant 
claims,  had  made  no  apparent  impression  on  the  Continent,  except  among 
theorists.  The  policy  of  gaining  a  point  here  and  another  there,  and  by 
slow  degrees  binding  a  nation  to  more  favorable  commercial  terms,  was 
seized  upon  as  a  last  resort  of  a  desperate  cause,  as  expressed  by  the  emi- 
nent disciple  of  Cobden  quoted  from  above. 

Thus  the  novel  form  of  commercial  treaties  was  artfully  brought  about  in  two 
steps;  the  first  owing  to  Mr.  Cobden  and  Michel  Chevalier,  the  second  owing  chiefly 
to  the  German  and  Bfelgian  free  traders.  No  particular  conspiracy  had  been  necessary. 
Every  one  of  the  wide-spread  voluntary  forces  knew  at  once  himself  what  he  had  to 
do,  and  every  one  knew  what  the  other  would  do.  No  doubt  Europe,  to  a  certain 
extent,  has  been  taken  by  surprise.  It  looked  as  if  commercial  treaties  were  made  as 
of  old;  what,  however,  was  made,  was/rrr  trade,  nothing  but  free  trade,  as  much  free 
trade  as  could  be  secured  on  the  occasion,  here  a  bit,  there  a  bit— if  summed  up,  a  good 
deal  altogether -and  yet  by  far  not  enough. 

That  this  was  a  deep  laid  .scheme,  a  con.spiracy  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Cobden    and  his  aiders  and   abettors   against   the   industrial   life  of  other 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


nations,  carried  through  by  deception  and  fraud  on  the  people  under  the 
guise  of  commercial  treaties,  is  fully  admitted  by  Julius  Faucher,  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  : 

It  is  no  longer  necessary  to  keep  up  even  the  semblance  of  such  commercial 
treaties  as  in  olden  times  had  the  character  and  purport  of  mutually  admitting  the 
subjects  of  the  two  contracting  States  as  sellers  to  their  respective  markets.  That  was 
a  mere  dodge,  good  for  the  beginning,  and  which  only  the  French  traders,  whose  posi- 
tion in  their  country  was  and  is  still  the  weakest,  were  compelled  to  adopt.  Treaties 
may  now  at  once  be  clothed  in  that  form  which,  as  was  privately  understood,  the  orig- 
inal Anglo-French  treaty,  was  AestineAJinally  to  receive  on  both  sides;  namely,  that 
of  contemporaneous  reduction  or  abolition  of  protective  positions  in  the  tariff  of  the 
two  contracting  parties  without  reference  to  the  difference  in  the  national  origin  of  the 
article.  Experience  has  shown  that  the  political  advantage — for  it  is  exclusively 
political— of  the  alliance  of  such  producers  as  feel  themselves  strong  enough  for  com- 
peting in  the  foreign  market  may  thus  be  secured  for  free  trade  reforms  just  as  unich 
as  if  exclusive  advantages  were  offered  to  them.  That  both  contracting  parties 
became  lied,  for  a  given  time,  to  the  respective  tariff  reforms  on  which  they  have 
agreed,  is  an  advantage  into  the  bargain.  It  helps  over  the  danger  of  a  reflux  of 
public  opinion  arising  from  the  trials  of  the  first  years.' 

Mr.  Faucher  further  said,  in  justification  of  what  he  concededly 
believed  to  be  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  free  trade  by  underhand  and 
secret  means,  that  ' '  to  anticipate  the  complete  victory  of  reason  by  using 
strategy  is  fully  justified  in  this  case  morally  as  well  as  practically." 
The  principle  that  the  end  justified  the  means  and  that  deception  and 
fraud  may  be  employed,  to  advance  the  cause  of  free  trade,  has  undoubt- 
edly eased  the  conscience  of  free  traders  in  the  infamous  practices  resorted 
to  by  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  in  getting  the  best  of  the  farmers  of  Eng- 
land as  well  as  in  the  circulation  of  falsehoods  throughout  the  United 
States;  in  playing  all  manner  of  tricks  with  statistics;  misrepresenting  the 
facts  of  history;  in  playing  the  role  of  demagogues  and  cheats  wherever 
votes  could  be  secured,  custom  house  officers  evaded  and  the  cause  of  free 
trade  advanced.  This  distinguished  free  trader,  in  speaking  of  the  victories 
gained  in  Germany,  said: 

But  it  has  been  the  result  of  political  strategy  being  not  disdainfully  scorned  in 
the  great  international  cause  of  free  trade.  .  .  .  For  us  German  free  traders  the 
danger  of  an  impending  rupture  was  but  one  reason  more  to  prefer  a  treaty  of  com- 
merce with  Austria,  if  that  was  possible,  to  all  others,  and  early  did  I  communicate  to 
Mr.  Cobden  that  such  a  treat}-  was  our  next  step ;  but  that  I  was'  afraid  of  its  being 
extremely  difficult  to  bring  about. 

But  the  intrigue  and  deception  of  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  have 
been  exposed  and  rebuked,  and  the  policy  which  they  sought  to  rivet  upon 
the  people  of  Europe  has  been  repudiated.  Although  a  short  period  of  free 
trade  and  a  few  short  years  of  flooding  Continental  markets  with  British 
,goods  was  the  result  of  their  effort,  yet  the  actual  experience  with  free  trade 


'Cobden  Club  Essays.  1871-2,  pp.  278  aud  279. 


36 


PROTECTION  IN  CONTINENTAL  AND  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 


Contrast 
bctiveen  the 

of  England 
and  those 
of  the  Con- 


principles,  which  was  afforded  to  the  people  of  Europe,  has  done  more  to 
open  their  ej-es  and  to  expose  the  errors  of  Cobdenism  than  all  the  books  that 
could  have  been  written.  Unemployed  labor,  idle  machinerj',  business  de- 
pressions, bankruptcy  and  starvation,  brought  about  by  an  application  of  free 
trade  principles  to  industrial  countries  and  communities,  which  had  enjoyed 
prosperity  under  protection,  teach  lessons  which  no  amount  of  sophistry 
can  counteract.  European  countries  were  induced  to  abandon  protection 
because  they  had  not  tried  free  trade.  They  returned  to  protection 
because  they  had  tried  both  policies.  One  of  the  most  discouraging  fea- 
tures of  the  question  which  to-day  is  presented  to  the  dogmatic  free  trader, 
is  the  fact  that  free  trade  has  been  abandoned  by  European  countries,  after 
a  short  trial,  which  proved  mo.st  disastrous  to  their  interests,  and  that 
they  are  now  more  devoted  to  protection  than  ever  before.  The  Australian 
colonies,  Canada,  India  and  all  of  England's  possessions  have  refused  to 
abide  by  the  teachings  of  the  home  government.  In  South  America, 
China  and  Japan,  on  every  continent,  among  all  civilized  and  industrial 
people,  the  selfish  purposes  of  Great  Britain  are  fully  understood.  She  is 
no  longer  able  to  deceive  the  people  of  any  country.  The  principles  of 
protection  are  everywhere  in  the  ascendency,  more  cherished  than  ever 
before,  more  potent  for  good  than  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
They  have  been  vindicated  by  an  actual  trial,  and  will  remain  as  a  shield 
for  struggling  humanity  until  the  strong  cease  to  oppress  or  destro}'  the 
weak,  and  until  competition  ceases  to  be  waged  with  a  spirit  of  enmity. 

It  is  most  important  that  the  investigation  pursued  by  the  Royal  Com- 
mission on  Depres.sion  of  Trade  and  Industry  disclosed  the  fact  that  while 
there  was  a  downward  tendenc}'  of  wages  in  free  trade  England,  between 
1876  and  1885,  in  protectionist  countries  during  the  same  years  the  rate  of 
wages  had  advanced.  While  the  army  of  unemployed  has  constantly  been 
increased  and  less  work  has  been  afforded  to  British  laborers  tinder  their 
system  of  free  imports,  the  very  reverse  has  been  the  result  in  protected 
Europe.  Factories  have  been  built  instead  of  destroyed.  Increased 
employment  has  been  given  to  labor  in  all  parts  of  the  Continent  through 
the  system  of  protection.  The  encouragement  given  to  the  cultivation  of 
the  soil  and  reclaiming  of  waste  land,  adopting  improved  methods  and 
increasing  the  home  supply  of  food,  have  not  only  greatly  aided  the  rural 
population,  but  prevented  that  overcrov.-ding  of  the  large  cities  which  has 
occurred  in  England.  The  wi.sdom  of  securing  the  widest  possible  diver- 
sity of  industries  and  occupations  in  a  den.sely  populated  country  is  fully 
demonstrated  by  the  improvement  of  the  masses  which  has  taken  place  on 
the  Continent  during  the  past  thirty  years. 

Again,  the  high  degree  of  perfection  in  manufacturing  which  is  being 
attained  is  one  of  the  chief  proofs  of  the  wisdom  of  protection.  The  aid 
extended  by  governments  in  the  establishment  of  schools  for  industrial 
instruction  is  bearing  fruit  in  the  high  degree  of  artistic  skill  and  taste 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,  ITALY,  ETC. 


which  is  being  reached.  In  chemistry,  in  the  dyeing,  printing  and  weav- 
ing of  textile  fabrics,  the  skill  displayed  in  France,  Switzerland  and  Ger- 
many far  excels  that  possessed  bj'  the  workingmen  of  any  other  countries. 
In  the  working  of  metals,  the  making  of  delicate  and  intricate  machinerj-, 
beautiful  and  artistic  wares  of  all  sorts,  the  pre-eminence  of  Europe  is 
unquestioned.  This  high  degree  of  skill  has  been  reached  under  the  .shield 
of  protection.  Artisans  have  been  enabled  to  study  designs,  make  experi- 
ments and  develop  a  genius  and  faculty  which  never  could  have  been 
brought  out  under  the  blighting  influence  of  vigorous  competition.  While 
the  artisans  of  the  Continent  have  had  room  to  develop  these  higher  facul- 
ties, the  British  manufacturers,  in  their  race  for  "cheapness,"  in  their  efforts 
to  undersell  everybody  else,  have  necessarily  drifted  into  the  channel  of 
making  cheap  goods  and  at  last  rivals  have  arisen  in  nearly  ever)-  country 
to  take  from  them  their  markets  by  imitating  their  cheap  wares. 

One  of  the  chief  advantages  of  protection  in  Europe  from  a  practical 
commercial  point  of  view  is  the  competitive  strength  which  it  gives  to  their 
manufacturers.  With  their  own  home  markets  secured  they  are  all  now 
engaged  in  making  a  surplus  for  export,  which  is  not  only  being  placed 
on  the  English  markets,  but  distributed  throughout  the  world  everywhere 
in  competition  with  British  wares.  The  excessive  production  which  is 
taking  place  in  Europe  through  the  u.se  of  machinery,  modern  appliances, 
abundance  of  capital  and  by  the  mo.st  highly  skilled  and  efiicient  arti.sans 
in  the  world,  is  an  important  fact  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States  in  measuring  their  chances  of  gaining  a  foot- 
hold in  the  markets  of  the  world.  Over  300,000,000  people  in  Europe 
are  not  only  preserving  and  maintaining  their  home  markets,  but  are 
glutting  ever>'  market  on  the  face  of  the  globe  with  everj'  conceivable 
commodity  made  by  the  handicraft  of  man.  Every  port  in  the  world, 
ever}'  warehouse  is  filled  with  articles  from  their  factories  offered  for  sale  at 
prices  which  furnish  small  reward  for  capital,  and  but  a  scanty  return  for 
labor.  These  are  the  conditions  under  which  the  United  States  is  asked  to 
contest  for  foreign  markets.  Never  in  the  history  of  the  world  has  it  been  so 
difficult  for  the  United  States  to  maintain  its  wage  rate  and  the  comfort  and 
opulence  of  its  people  under  free  competition  as  to-day.  The  very  fact 
that  Continental  countries  are  undermining  the  industrial  life  of  Great 
Britain  and  that  her  industrial  centres  are  filled  with  alarm  and  her 
manufacturers  and  artisans  crying  out  with  distress,  makes  the  proof 
doubly  strong  that  if  the  United  States  should  let  down  or  remove  her 
protective  barriers  every  industry  would  be  closed,  every  wheel  silenced  and 
every  laborer  thrown  out  of  employment.  There  is  .scarcely  an  article 
made  in  the  United  States  but  that  can  be  made  cheaper  in  some  other 
part  of  the  world.  So  long  as  this  situation  remains,  the  only  hope  of  our 
industrial  prosperity  lies  in  the  perpetuation  of  the  policy  of  protection. 


PART   VI. 
THE  TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

CHAPTER  I. 
Early  Tariff  History  to  1833. 

The  greatest  want  of  civilized  society  is  the  market  for  the  exchange  and  sale 
of  its  surplus  produce.  This  market  may  exist  at  home  or  abroad,  but  it  must  exist 
somewhere  if  society  prcspers.  The  home  market  is  first  in  order  and  paramount  in 
importance.  The  object  of  the  bill  under  consideration  is  to  create  this  home 
market,  and  to  lay  the  foundation  oi  a.  genuine  American  policy. — Speech  of  Henry 
Clay  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  jo  and  31,  1824. 

The  American  system  of  protection  has  been  referred  to  by  writers 
and  speakers  for  about  seventy-five  years.  It  re.ally  dates  from  the  tariff 
of  1824.  It  is  now  proposed  to  show  in  what  way  the  American  system 
has  differed  from  the  .system  of  any  other  country,  what  led  to  the 
adoption  of  the  .system,  and  what  has  been  the  result.  The  keynote 
is  sounded  in  one  .sentence  of  the  above  quotation,  viz.",  that  a  market 
must  exist  if  society  is  to  prosper,  and  that  the  home  market  is  first  in 
order  and  paramount  in  importance. 

To  recite  the  early  history-  of  our  country  would  be  to  repeat 
over  and  over  again  the  iniquitous  methods  of  Great  Britain  in 
keeping  us  in  subjection  and  preventing  us  from  developing  manu- 
factures. England  ever  kept  one  idea  uppermost,  to  strangle  in  its 
infancy  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  American  colonists  to  manufac- 
ture anything  for  them.selves.  All  through  the  early  part  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  laws  were  continually  pa.ssed  by  parliament  to  this  end; 
prohibitions  of  all  natures  were  frequent.  Lord  Chatham's  declaration 
that  he  would  not  permit  the  colonists  to  make  even  a  hobnail  or  a  horse- 
shoe for  themselves,  has  been  repeated  by  writers  and  speakers  for  gen- 
erations, and  in  that  sentence  is  found  the  whole  policy  of  England 
toward  the  colonies  as  long  as  .she  was  able  in  any  way  to  control  them. 
To  keep  the  American  coloni.sts  an  agricultural  people  .solely  that  they 
might  be  dependent  upon  her  for  her  manufactured  articles  at  her  own 
price,  seems  to  have  been  the  prime  object  of  every  act  of  legislation 
tending  in  any  way  to  aiTect  the  colonies,  and  for  years  England  was 
successful  in  carrying  out  this  policy. 


EABLV  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  18SS. 


By  the  Navigation  Act  Great  Britain  had  decreed  that  no  goods  or 
commodities  whatever,  of  the  growth,  or  manufacture  of  Europe,  Africa 
or  America,  should  be  imported  into  England  or  Ireland  or  into  any  of 
the  plantations  (that  is,  American  colonies),  except  in  ships  belonging 
to  English  subjects  of  which  the  master  and  greater  number  of  the  crew 
should  also  be  English ;  consequently  the  prices  of  all  articles  imported 
as  well  as  those  exported,  were  controlled  entirely  by  the  English.  They 
demanded  and  got  their  own  prices  for  what  we  bought  of  them  and 
they  offered  their  own  prices  for  what  we  sold  them  and  we  had  to  accept 
whatever  they  offered. 

The  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  British  parliament  to  prevent  the  estab 
lishtuent  of  rival  industries  in  the  colonies,  has  been  referred  to  in  the 
treatment  of  the  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain.  The  effort 
to  compel  the  colonists  to  confine  themselves  to  agricultural  pursuits 
did  not  contemplate  that  they  should  furnish  the  mother  country  with 
farm  products,  because  at  that  time  a  rigid  system  of  protection  to 
agriculture  was  being  pursued  and  was  continued  up  to  1846.  The 
expression  of  parliament  that  the  establishment  of  manufactories  in 
the  New  World  tended  to  make  them  less  dependent  on  the  mother 
country,  should  be  viewed  in  its  commercial  rather  than  its  political 
bearing.  These  expressions  occurred  before  there  was  any  indica 
tion  of  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  colonists  to  set  up  an  independent 
government.  To  maintain  the  market  for  British  wares  was  the  end  that 
the  mother  country  had  in  view.  The  care  with  which  the  colonists 
were  watched  and  the  interests  of  British  manufacturers  guarded  is  dis 
closed  by  the  constant  reports  of  the  king's  representatives  in  the  colonies 
upon  the  subject,  and  the  investigations  which  were  successively  made 
to  see  that  all  efforts  at  iron  smelting,  and  textile  manufacturing  were 
immediately  suppressed.  But,  however  powerful  the  British  Govern- 
ment might  have  been  it  could  not  control  the  domestic  pursuits  of  the 
people.  The  raising  of  flax,  the  keeping  of  sheep,  the  weaving  of  linen 
and  woolen,  and  the  making  of  rude  implements  in  the  households  and 
on  the  farms,  could  not  be  suppressed.  In  the  efforts  to  supply  their 
own  wants  every  farmer  became  a  mechanic  or  a  jack-at-all-trades;  this 
gave  birth  to  that  Yankee  ingenuity  which  fitted  the  people  of  the 
colonies  to  become  great  inventors,  artisans  and  mechanics  as  soon  as  an 
opportunity  was  given  them  to  establish  fiscal  regulations  and  direct  their 
energies  to  industrial  pursuits.  The  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  mother 
country  to  restrict  the  enterprises  and  curb  the  energies  of  her  aspiring  and 
ambitious  sons  played  no  small  part  in  arousing  that  .spirit  of  patriotism 
and  sense  of  justice  which  ultimately  found  expression  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  and  in  the  establishment  of  a  free  government. 

In  1 77 1  the  imports  of  the  colonies  exceeded  the  exports  by 
$13,750,000,   a    vast   sum    for  that  period.     The  people   were  not  only 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


impoverished  but  were  fast  losing  spirit  and  ambition.  The  leaders  of 
the  times  saw  that  it  could  continue  no  longer,  and  there  was  no  recourse 
except  through  a  revolt,  with  what  success  need  not  here  be  recounted. 

In  1776  the  Continental  Congress,  after  signing  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  urged  the  colonies  to  form  .separate  State  governments. 
This  had  already  been  done  bj-  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  which 
adopted  a  con.stitution  in  June  of  that  year.  Following  this  suggestion 
of  Congress  the  colonies  all  adopted  con.stitutions  with  the  exception  of 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  which  continued  under  their  royal 
charters.  The  form  of  government  under  which  the  Revolutionary 
war  was  fought  consi.sted  of  a  confederation  of  these  new  States  for 
mutual  defence.  Representatives  were  sent  by  each  State  to  a  Con- 
tinental Congress  which  in  a  general  way  directed  the  affairs  of  the 
Confederacy  in  the  conduct  of  the  war.  Articles  of  Confederation  were 
adopted  in  the  spring  of  1781,  under  which  bills  of  credit  or  Continental 
monejr  were  issued  and  a  postal  system  and  war  department  established. 
The  executive  officers  were  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  and  Foreign  Affairs,  who  performed  the  duties  of  Secretary 
of  State.  This  form  of  government  continued  until  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  in  1789.  As  a  directing  body  to  press  the  Revolution 
through  to  a  successful  termination  the  Continental  Congress  had  thesjni- 
pathetic  assistance  and  aid  of  all  of  the  States.  Yet  as  a  legislative  body  to 
make  laws  for  the  government  of  a  nation,  it  lacked  authority.  During 
the  period  of  the  confederation  no  duties  could  be  imposed  excepting 
by  the  States  themselves  for  the  protection  and  encouragement  of  indus- 
tries. It  is  during  this  time  that  we  find  in  the  action  of  the  State  legis- 
latures the  first  step  toward  the  encouragement  of  manufacturing.  Prior 
to  the  establishment  of  these  State  governments  such  regulations  were 
strictly  prohibited  by  parliament  and  when  the  constitution  was  adopted 
in  1789  the  power  of  imposing  duties  on  imports  and  of  regulating 
commerce  between  nations  was  vested  in  the  general  government. 

Certain  States  had  attempted  to  impose  duties  on  imports,  but  for 
the  want  of  concerted  action  such  attempts  invariably  failed.  Penn- 
.sylvania  e.stablished  a  duty  of  2>^  per  cent,  but  New  Jersey's  free 
port  at  Burlington  served  to  nullify  Pennsylvania's  action.  New  Jersey 
voted  to  allow  Congress  to  impose  a  general  tariif  but  New  York  objected. 
New  Jersey  then  retaliated  by  opening  a  free  port  at  Paulus  Hook  oppo- 
site New  York  City,  and  New  York  merchants  took  advantageof  it  and  got 
their  goods  free  of  duty  through  this  port  as  did  Philadelphia  merchants 
through  Burlington.  But  such  action  was  of  course  suicidal.  Congress 
could  impo.se  no  duties  without  the  consent  of  all  thirteen  States  and  this 
could  not  be  had.  Each  State  regulated  its  own  trade  and  imposed 
duties  not  only  on  foreign  products  but  on  the  products  of  other  States. 
Each  one  was  jealous  of  the  other  and  none  were  prosperous.     Wisdom 


EABLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1S33. 

finally  prevailed  and  a  constitution  was  adopted  empowering  Congress 
to  impose  uniform  duties.  .  At  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  war  the 
colonists  occupied  the  same  position  with  relation  to  the  nations  of  Europe 
as  Venice  occupied  in  the  fourteenth  century  toward  the  city  of  Damascus 
and  the  industries  of  Asia.  They  were  in  the  same  condition  that 
France  and  Germany  were  in  the  .seventeenth  century  as  regards  Holland, 
Flanders  and  the  Italian  cities,  and  the  English  people  in  the  sixteenth 
century  when  their  markets  were  controlled  by  the  Dutch,  Flemish, 
Italians  and  Germans.  From  Maine  to  Florida  every  separate  seaport 
and  market  from  the  time  of  the  earliest  settlement  in  1607  had  been 
supplied  with  the  manufactures  of  Europe.  The  3,000,000  of  people  who 
gained  their  independence  had  devoted  their  energies  to  agricultural 
pursuits.  In  1777  John  Dickinson,  of  Pennsylvania,  wrote:  "We  are 
tillers  of  the  earth  from  Nova  Scotia  to  West  Florida." 

An  experience  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  proved  that  the  climate 
and  soil  were  suited  to  the  growth  of  a  great  variety  of  cereals,  vege- 
tables, fruits  and  fibres.  The  mineral  resources  of  the  country  were  not 
imknown.  The  vast  water  power  of  the  New  England  States,  together 
with  the  wants  and  needs  of  the  people,  had  suggested  the  advantages 
which  might  be  derived  from  manufacturing  and  mining  as  well  as  from 
agriculture.  Agriculture  was  regarded  as  of  the  highest  import- 
ance, as  shown  in  the  language  of  Daniel  Webster:  "Agriculture  feeds, 
to  a  great  extent  it  clothes  us;  without  it  we  .should  not  have  manu- 
factures; we  should  not  have  commerce.  The3'  all  stand  together 
like  pillars  in  a  clu.ster,  the  largest  in  the  centre,  and  that  largest  is 
agriculture. ' ' 

While  the  statesmen  of  the  time  recognized  the  importance  of  agri- 
culture, they  were  familiar  with  the  economic  policy  by  which  the 
nations  of  Europe,  especially  England,  had  not  only  improved  this 
industry  but  developed  manufacturing  and  mining,  and  had  increased 
the  opportunities  for  industrial  progress,  by  which  larger  employment  was 
found  for  their  people  and  greater  national  prosperity  and  opulence 
secured.  At  the  close  of  the  Revolutionarj'  war  Great  Britain  was  in 
the  midst  of  that  protective  period  which  had  been  so  vigorousl}-  pursued 
since  the  time  of  Elizabeth.  During  the  so-called  period  of  Confeder- 
ation, from  1783  to  1789,  we  find  for  the  first  and  perhaps  the  last  time 
in  the  recent  history  of  the  world,  a  nation  under  absolute  free  trade.  It 
took  but  little  time  to  demonstrate  what  such  a  system  will  bring  upon  a 
country.  In  three  years'  time  nearly  all  the  country's  money  had  passed 
into  the  pockets  of  British  merchants  and  manufacturers,  and  we  were 
almost  without  the  means  to  make  or  raise  anything  for  ourselves. 
With  no  tariff  whatever,  our  shores  were  heaped  with  the  products 
of  every  nation,  of  such  kind  and  description  that  we  could  not 
make  even  a  feeble  attempt  to  establish  any  competing  industries  of  our 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


own.  Our  imports  from  Great  Britain  alone  in  1784  and  1785  were 
$30,000,000,  while  to  her  we  exported  only  $8,000,000.  The  following 
table  will  show  our  whole  trade  with  England  from  1784  to  1790, 
inclusive: 

Exports.  Imports- 

1784, /749.345  .^3,679.467 

1785 893,594  2,308,023 

1786, ■ 843,119  1,603,465 

1787 893,637  2,009,111 

1788, 1,023,789  1,886,142 

17S9, 1,050,198  2,525,298 

1790 1,191,071  3,431,778 

^6,644,753  ;fi7,443,284 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  in  seven  years  the  excess  of  imports  over 
exports  exceeded  $52,000,000,  an  enormous  drain  in  those  early  days  of 
our  history.  This  was  the  result  of  absolute  free  trade.  In  the  words 
of  David  H.  Mason : 

As  this  was  the  closest  approach  to  absolute  free  trade  tried  by  this  country,  so 
there  was  the  largest  harvest  of  dangers  and  calamities  ever  experienced  by  the 
American  people.  Had  there  been  no  free  trade  there  would  have  been  no  inunda- 
tion of  foreign  goods.  Had  there  been  no  inundation  of  foreign  goods  there 
would  have  been  no  drain  of  specie.  Had  there  been  no  drain  of  specie  there 
would  have  been  no  lack  of  a  circulating  medium.  Had  there  been  no  such  distress 
there  would  have  been  no  impulse  toward  insubordination  to  the  State. 

At  last  our  forefathers  awakened  to  the  real  cause  of  their  condition 
and  took  steps  to  bring  about  a  change.  A  constitutii3nal  convention 
was  called,  a  constitution  was  adopted  and  in  the  face  of  the  declaration 
of  the  Democratic  party  of  the  United  States  in  their  platform  adopted  at 
Chicago  in  1892  that  protection  is  unconstitutional,  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  inquire  for  a  moment  what  ideas  were  in  the  minds  of  our  forefathers 
and  the  early  statesmen  of  the  government,  when  they  met  in  1789  and 
established  a  con.stitutional  government. 

Daniel  Webster,  in  a  speech  at  Buffalo,  June,  1833,  declared 
that,  ' '  The  protection  of  American  labor  against  the  injurious  competi- 
tion of  foreign  labor,  so  far  at  least  as  respects  general  handicraft  produc- 
tions, is  known  historically  to  have  been  one  end  designed  to  be  obtained 
by  establishing  the  Constitution." 

In  a  speech  at  Albany,  in  August,  1S44,  he  said: 

In  Colonial  times,  and  during  the  time  of  the  convention,  the  idea  was  held  up 
that  domestic  industry  could  not  prosper,  manufactures  and  the  mechanic  arts  could 
not  advance,  the  condition  of  the  conmion  country  could  not  be  carried  up  to  any 
consideral)le  elevation,  unless  there  should  be  one  government  to  lay  one  rate  of 
duty  upon  imports  throughout  the  Union,  regard  to  be  had,  in  laying  this  duty, 
to  the  protection  of  American  labor  and  industry. 

I  defv  the  man  in  any  degree  conversant  with  the  history,  in  any  degree 
acquainlt'd  with  Ihf  annals'of  this  country  from  17S7  to  17S9,  when  the  Con.^^titution 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1833. 

was  adopted,  to  say  that  protection  of  American  labor  and  industry  was  not  a  lead- 
ing, I  might  almost  say  the  leading,  motive.  South  as  well  as  North,  for  the  forma- 
tion of  the  new  government.  Without  that  provision  in  the  Constitution  it  never 
could  have  been  adopted. 

Ruftis  Choate,  who  made  a  careful  study  of  this  matter,  declared: 

A  whole  people,  a  whole  generation  of  our  fathers,  had  in  view,  as  one  grand 
end  and  purpose  of  their  new  government,  the  acquisition  of  the  means  of  restrain- 
ing, by  governmental  action,  the  importation  of  foreign  manufactures,  for  the 
encouragement  of  manufactures  and  labor  at  home;  and  desired  and  meant  to  do 
this  by  clothing  the  new  government  with  this  specific  power  of  regulating  com- 
merce. This  whole  countrj',  with  one  voice,  demanded  to  have  inserted  in  the 
Constitution  the  power  to  enact  protective  legislation,  a  power  which  they  held  as 
another  declaration  of  independence — a  power  by  which  we  are  able  to  protect  all 
our  children  of  labor.  This  power  must  not  be  surrendered,  must  not  sleep,  until 
the  Union  flag  shall  be  hauled  down  from  the  last  mast-head — a  slight  which,  I 
trust,  neither  we  nor  our  children  to  the  thousandth  generation  are  doomed  to  see. 

In  the  debate  on  the  first  tariff  bill  in  1789,  Fisher  Ames  said:  "  I 
conceive,  sir,  that  the  present  Constitution  was  dictated  by  commercial 
necessity  more  than  by  any  other  cause.  The  want  of  an  efficient  gov- 
ernment to  secure  the  manufacturing  interests,  and  to  advance  our  com- 
merce, was  long  seen  by  men  of  judgment  and  pointed  out  by  patriots 
solicitous  to  prouiote  our  general  welfare. ' ' 

A  mass  of  evidence  of  this  nature  could  be  cited  but  the  fact  that 
many  of  the  very  men  who  made  the  Constitution  helped  to  frame  the 
first  tariff  law  with  its  protective  features,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  the 
first  President  of  the  Republic  concurred  in  their  views  must  be  conclu- 
sive as  to  their  motives  and  intentions. 

Section  VIII  of  the  Constitution  reads,  that  Congress  shall  have 
power : 

I.  "To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts  and  excises,  to  pay  the 
debts  and  provide  for  the  commoji  defence  and  ge7ieral  welfare  of  the  United 
States,  but  all  duties,  imposts  and  excises  shall  be  tmiform  throughout  the 
United  States. 

3.    "7(7  regulate  commerce  ivith  foreign  nations,"  etc. 

In  the  light  of  what  followed  and  has  continued  till  the  present  day 
it  seems  superfltious  to  attempt  a  defence  of  the  fact  that  protective 
duties  have  been  for  the  "general  welfare  of  the  United  States,"  and 
that  they  have  served  to  "regulate  commerce  with  foreign  countries." 
There  could  be  no  stronger  or  more  conclusive  proof  that  the  makers  of 
the  Constitution  intended  to  bestow  upon  Congress  the  power  to  impose 
duties  for  protection  as  well  as  revenue  than  the  fact  that  the  very  first 
measure,  save  an  act  to  regulate  the  form  of  official  oaths,  was  a  tariff 
bill  embodying  the  principles  of  protection.  The  preamble  to  this  act 
read: 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


"Whereas,  it  is  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  government  for  the 
discharge  of  the  debt  of  the  United  States,  and/or  the  enco7irageme7it  and 
protection  of  manufactures,  that  duties  be  laid  on  imported  goods,  etc., 
therefore  be  it  enacted,"  etc. 

Here  was  a  bill  framed  and  passed  within  a  few  months  after  the 
making  of  the  Constitution.  The  same  men,  the  same  minds,  contributed 
to  both.  There  was  not  a  protest  that  the  bill  was  unconstitutional.  It 
not  only  carried  out  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  but  there  is 
not  a  particle  of  doubt  but  that  the  main  causes  that  led  to  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution  was  that  .such  a  bill  should  be  framed  and  made  a  law 
by  Congress.  As  has  been  shown  we  were  an.  agricultural  people.  We 
could  not  manufacture  for  ourselves  under  the  rule  of  England.  Our 
Congressmen  were  farmers.  They  saw  that  a  home  market  was  essen- 
tial to  their  prosperity.  They  saw  that  we  must  manufacture  for  our- 
selves. And  in  the  minds  of  those  farmer  statesmen  were  awakening 
into  life  the  first  thoughts  of  an  American  tariff  system,  a  system  with 
a  home  market  as  its  foundation,  with  protection  to  all  industries  as  its 
keystone.  They  had  no  thought  of  the  welfare  or  ruin  of  England  or 
France  or  the  rest  of  the  world.  They  made  a  constitution  and  passed 
laws  for  America  and  Americans.  Five  of  the  leading  men  who  sup- 
ported that  first  tariff  bill  afterward  became,  presidents.  That  the 
thought  of  establishing  an  American  system  was  foremost  in  the  minds 
of  tho.se  patriot  fathers  can  be  gleaned  from  what  Jefferson  said  upon 
accepting  an  election  to  membership  in  a  Society  for  the  Encourage- 
ment of  Domestic  Manufactures,  in  1817.     He  wrote: 

The  history  of  the  last  twenty  years  has  been  a  significant  lesson  for  us  all  to 
depend  for  necessaries  on  ourselves  alone;  and  I  hope  twenty  years  more  will  place 
the  American  hemisphere  under  a  system  of  its  own.  essentially  peaceable  ami 
industrious  and  not  needing  to  extract  its  comforts  out  of  the  eternal  fires  raging 
in  the  old  world. 

Wa.shington,  Adams  and  Jefferson  were  outspoken  concerning  the 
need  of  protection.  "The  safety  and  welfare  of  the  people,"  .said  Wash- 
ington, "require  that  they  promote  .such  manufactures  as  to  render  them 
independent  of  others  for  essentials. "  John  Adams,  in  speaking  of  the 
tariff  and  its  effects,  in  his  last  annual  message,  said:  "This  result 
affords  conclusive  evidence  of  the  great  resources  of  the  country  and  of 
the  wisdom  and  efficiency  of  the  measures  which  have  been  adopted  by 
Congress. ' '  Jefferson  continually  referred  to  the  beneficence  of  a  protec- 
tive tariff  in  his  messages,  in  public  papers  and  private  correspondence. 
Our  fourth  President,  James  Madison,  gained  the  reputation  of  being 
"the  father  of  the  Constitution."  He  was  also  supposed  to  be  the 
author  of  the  preamble  of  the  fir.st  tariff  law.  Mr.  Madison  him.self  intro- 
duced that  fir.st  tariff  bill   into  Congress,  defended  and  with  thu  aid  of 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1S33. 


his  fellow  statesmen,  excepting  eight  only,  passed  it.  Afterward,  in  a 
special  message  to  Congress,  May  23,  1809,  he  said:  "  It  will  be  worthy 
of  the  just  and  provident  care  of  Congress  to  make  such  further  altera- 
tions in  the  laws  as  will  more  especially  protect  and  foster  the  several 
branches  of  manufactures  which  have  been  recently  instituted  or  extended 
by  the  laudable  exertions  of  our  citizens. ' ' 

In  Pitkin's  Statistics  we  find  the  following: 

One  of  the  objects  which  claimed  the  attention  of  the  First  Congress,  under 
the  new  form  of  government,  was  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  the  manu- 
facturing as  well  as  the  commercial  interests  of  the  country.  In  laying  duties  on 
imports  in  July,  1789,  Congress  had  reference,  as  the  preamble  of  the  act  impos- 
ing them  declares,  to  "the  protection  and  encouragement  of  manufactures."  This 
was,  also,  openly  avowed,  on  the  iioor  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  the 
debates  on  the  first  tariff  established  by  the  general  government.  The  first  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  (Hamilton),  whose  powerful  mind  seemed  intuitively  fully  to 
comprehend  ever>-  subject  to  which  it  bent  its  force,  was  the  great  advocate  of 
American  manufactures.  In  his  celebrated  report  on  this  subject,  presented  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  January,  1791,  every  argimient  was  urged  and  we  may 
truly  add,  exhausted,  in  favor  of  the  policy  and  expediency  of  protecting  and 
encouraging  this  branch  of  domestic  economy. 

The  constitutionality  of  a  protective  tariff  was  never  questioned  in 
those  early  days.  It  is  doubtful  if  there  was  any  anticipation  that  it 
would  ever  be.  But  the  question  was  settled  once  and  for  all  not  onls' 
by  the  speeches  of  "the  father  of  the  Constitution,"  but  by  all  his  coad- 
jutors. Those  statesmen  were  in  perfect  accord.  The  Constitution  was 
adopted  and  a  tariff  bill  framed  and  passed  providing  for  both  revenue 
and  protection  at  the  will  and  command  of  the  people.  Said  Mr.  Madi- 
-son :  ' '  The  people  adopted  the  new  con.stitution,  I  believe,  under  a  uni- 
versal expectation  that  we  should  establish  higher  duties."  Having  in 
mind  the  duties  impo.sed  by  the  different  States  he  added,  "Those  States 
have  now  relinquished  the  power  of  continuing  their  systems,  but  under 
the  impression  that  a  more  eflScient  government  would  effectually  support 
their  views."  There  was  no  equivocation,  no  attempt  at  ambiguity. 
Says  R.  W.  Thompson,  in  his  "History  of  the  Protective  Tariff,"  con- 
cluding an  exhaustive  treatment  of  this  subject: 

The  tariff  law  of  17S9,  therefore,  must  fairly  and  justly  be  accepted  as  having 
settled,  as  far  as  could  be  done  by  legislation,  the  constitutionality  of  giving 
protection  to  manufactures,  and  as  having  laid  the  foundation  upon  which  the  pro- 
tective policy  has  since  rested.  He,  who,  after  becoming  familiar  with  the  plain  and 
precise  facts,  perversely  insists  upon  putting  a  different  interpretation  upon  them, 
makes  his  "wish  father  to  the  thought,"  or  is  singularly  incapable  of  understand- 
ing history  and  the  philosophy  it  teaches. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  fill  pages,  as  could  be  done,  with  testimony 
corroborative  of  the  honesty  of  purpose  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic. 
The  reader,  however,  will  not  think  too  much  has  been  said  or  quoted 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


when  such  scholars  as  Professor  Taussig  declare  that:  "For  twenty  years 
after  the  formation  of  the  Union  other  subjects  so  absorbed  the  attention 
of  public  men  that  no  distinct  opinion  appears  in  their  utterances  for  or 
against  protective  duties."  '  A  careful  reader  of  the  history  of  the  early 
days  of  the  Republic  on  finding  it  teeming  with  very  distinct  and  most 
emphatic  utterances  in  favor  of  protective  duties  would  advise  Professor 
Taussig  to  reconstruct  his  tariff  history. 

The  act  of  July  4,  1789,  levied  duties  on  thirty-five  articles.  Fur- 
ther acts  were  passed  in  1790,  1791,  1792,  1794,  1795,  1797,  1800,  1804, 
1807,  1808.  In  the  law  of  1808  over  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  arti- 
cles were  enumerated  bearing  duties  and  about  thirty  articles  were 
admitted  free. 

Shortly  after  the  passage  of  the  first  tariff  law  a  resolution  was 
passed  in  the  House  of  Representatives  instructing  Alexander  Hamilton, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  prepare  and  report  a  plan,  "for  the  encour- 
agement and  promotion  of  such  manufactures  as  will  tend  to  render  the 
United  States  independent  of  other  nations  for  essential,  particularly  for 
military,  supplies. ' '  The  report  has  ever  been  considered  a  masterpiece.  No 
public  document  has  ever  shown  greater  care,  greater  clearness,  greater 
wisdom.  Hamilton  showed  that  he  was  a  thorough  protectionist,  in  entire 
harmony  with  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  day.  He  argued  for  a  home 
market,  for  diversification  of  industry,  and  for  industrial  independence.  It 
is  needless  to  add  that  the  report  was  approved  and  acted  upon.  The 
reader  has  seen  how  England  drained  us  of  over  $50,000,000  during  the 
Confederation  when  we  had  absolutely  free  trade.  In  five  years  after  the 
tariff  law  of  1789  went  into  operation  the  balance  of  trade  with  Great 
Britain  stood  in  our  favor.  During  the  seven  years  from  1795  to  1801 
inclusive,  our  exports  to  the  mother  country  exceeded  our  imports  by 
$90,000,000.  Our  revenue  soon  began  to  exceed  our  expenditures.  Our 
public  debt  was  reduced  from  $80,000,000  in  1793  to  $45,000,000  in 
1812,  at  the  breaking  out  of  our  second  war  with  Great  Britain.  Our 
prosperity  was  manifest  on  all  sides  for  twenty-five  years  following  that 
first  tariff. 

In  1808  came  the  embargo  to  meet  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees 
of  Napoleon  and  the  British  Orders  in  Council.  This  retaliatory 
move  was  extremely  unpopular  and  in  1809  it  was  followed  with  the 
Non-Intercourse  Act,  which  applied  only  to  our  trade  with  England  and 
France.  One  complication  after  another  followed,  till  in  18 12  war  was 
again  declared  against  Great  Britain  and  all  connnercial  intercourse 
cea.sed.  As  a  means  of  raising  a  war  reveime  all  existing  import  duties 
were  doubled.  European  trade  was  virtually  at  an  end  and  American 
manufactories  sprang  up  to  supply  the  demand  for  those  articles  hereto- 
fore   imported.      It    may    not    be   uninteresting    before    going    further 

1  T;irin    Uislurv  of  tlic  mitcil  Stales,  p.  I.'. 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1833. 

to  Study  the  returns  of  manufacture  in   1810  prepared  by  order  of  the 
government. 

The    estimate    was    prepared    by    Mr.    Tench    Coxe,    and    was 
follows : 


Goods  manufactured  by  the  loom,  from  cotton,  wool,  hemp,  flax, 
and  silk,  including  .stockings 

Other  goods  spun  from  the  fine  materials  above  enumerated,  .    .    . 

Instruments  and  machinery  manufactured,  estimated  at  1186,630, 
carding,  fulling,  and  floor-cloth  staining  by  machinery,  estimated 
at  |5,957,8i6,      

Hats  of  wool,  fur,  etc.,  and  from  mixtures  thereof, 

Manufactures  of  iron, 

Manufactures  of  gold,  silver,  set- work,  mixed  metals,  etc.,     .    .    . 

Manufactures  of  lead,    ...  

Soap,  tallow,   candles  and  wax,  spermaceti,  and  whale  oil,       .    .    . 

Manufactures  of  hides  and  skins, 

Manufactures  from  seeds 

Manufactures  from  grain,  fruit,  and  case  liquors,  distilled  and 
fermented,  .  

Dry  manufactures  from  grain,  exclusive  of  flour,  meal,  etc. ,  .    .    . 

Manufactures  of  wood,  

Manufactures  of  essences  of  oils, 

Refined  sugar, 

Manufactures  of  paper,  paste  boards,  cards,  etc., 

Manufactures  of  gla,ss,  

Manufactures  of  marble,  stone,  and  slate, 

Earthen  manufactures, 

Tobacco  manufactures, 

Drugs,  dye-stuffs,  and  dyeing, 

Cables  and  cordage,      

Manufactures  of  hair, 

Various  and  miscellaneous  manufactures, 


$  39.497,057 
2,052, 120 


6,144,446 
4,328,744 
14,364,526 
2,483,912 

1,766,292 
17,935.4' 
858,589 

16,528,206 

75,767 

5,554,708 

179, 150 
1,415.724 
1,939.285 
1,047,004 

462,115 

259, 720 
1,260,378 

500,382 
4,243,168 

129,731 
4.347,611 


Total $127,694,602 

This  would  be  a  remarkable  showing  under  any  circumstances,  but 
considering  the  condition  of  the  people  when  a  tariff  was  adopted,  con- 
sidering the  constant  hostility  of  England  to  our  industrial  progress  and 
considering  the  fact  that  we  had  only  the  crudest  of  machinery,  the 
progress  of  our  forefathers  in  manufacture  was  indeed  marv-elous.  Eng- 
land had  passed  the  most  stringent  laws  again.st  the  exportation  of  any 
textile  machinery.  In  1774  a  restrictive  statute  was  enacted,  and  in 
1 78 1  still  another  statute  was  enacted  amending  the  former  act  and  pro- 
hibiting the  exportation  of 

Any  machine,  engine,  tool,  press,  paper,  utensil,  or  implement  whatever,  which 
now  is,  or  may  at  any  time  be,  used  or  proper  for  the  preparing,  working,  press- 
ing, finishing,  or  completing  of  linen,  cotton,  wool  or  silk  manufactures  of  this 
kingdom,  or  any  other  goods  wherein  wool,  cotton  or  silk  is  used,  or  any  part  of 
such  machine,  etc.,  or  any  model  or  plan  of  such  machine. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


It  was  not  till  1845  that  these  prohibitions  were  wholty  removed 
and  while  in  existence  they  were  strictly  enforced  and  very  rarely  evaded. 
Attempts  were  made  to  smuggle  models  into  this  country,  but  all 
such  efEorts  failed.  The  consequence  was  that  we  were  thrown  entirely 
on  our  own  resources  and  we  became  a  creative  and  inventive  people.  As 
she  had  done  before  the  Confederation,  so  again  did  England  overreach 
herself  and  compel  us  to  become  industrially  independent.  We  were 
equal  to  the  occasion  as  England  soon  learned  to  her  cost.  We  would 
willingly  have  bought  her  machinery,  but  she  compelled  us  to  make  our 
own.  In  the  words  of  John  Hayes:  "Forced  to  be  self-reliant,  our  textile 
arts  and  our  machinery  are  as  original  and  characteristic  as  our  indigenous 
plants,  and,  we  may  add,  as  noble  and  symmetrical  as  our  native  elms." 

The  close  of  the  war  in  1815  brought  with  it  a  change  of  import 
duties,  and  as  the  result  was  so  disastrous  it  will  be  well  to  examine 
closely  the  causes.  President  Madison  in  his  special  message  of  1815, 
declaring  the  war  at  an  end  and  the  treaty  of  peace,  said : 

The  reviving  interest  of  commerce  will  claim  the  legislative  attention  at  the 
earliest  opportunity,  and  .such  regulations  will,  I  trust,  be  seasonably  devised  asshall 
securetotheUnitedStatestheir  just  proportion  of  the  navigation  of  the  world.  .  .  . 
But  there  is  no  subject  that  can  enter  with  greater  forceand  merit  into  the  delibera- 
tions of  Congress,  than  the  consideration  of  the  means  to  preserve  and  promote  the 
manufactures  which  have  sprung  into  existence,  and  attained  an  unparalleled 
maturity  throughout  the  United  States  during  the  period  of  the  European  wars. 
This  source  of  national  independence  and  wealth  I  anxiously  recommend,  there- 
fore, to  the  prompt  and  constant  guardianship  of  Congress. 

Mr.  Gallatin,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  approving  of  the  report 
made  by  Mr.  Coxe,  said : 

And  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  raw  materials  used,  and  the  provisions  and 
other  articles  con.sumed,  by  the  manufacturers,  created  a  home  market  for  agri- 
cultural products  not  very  inferior  to  that  which  might  have  arisen  from  foreign 
demand— a  result  more  favorable  than  might  have  been  expected  from  a  view  of 
the  natural  causes  which  impede  the  introduction,  and  retard  the  progress  of  manu- 
factures in  the  United  States. 

Here  we  find  another  allusion  to  the  home  market  which  was  rapidly 
becoming  of  no  inconsiderable  importance.  As  the  years  went  on,  in 
.spite  of  war  and  foreign  hostility,  the  American  people,  becoming  more 
and  more  self-reliant  and  industrially  independent,  were  building  up 
both  consciously  and  unconsciously  a  home  market  that  was  to  be  the 
corner-stone,  yes.  the  very  foundation  of  the  American  System  of  Protec- 
tion. As  we  follow  the  development  of  this  system  we  shall  see  what 
made  .such  a  market  po.ssible  and  profitable;  a  market  destined  to  over- 
shadow all  the  markets  of  the  world  combined.  As  James  Madison  was 
the  leading  mind  in  making  the  Constitution  and  framing  the  first  tariff 
law,  so  he  was  a  prime  mover  in  the  adoption  of  the  tariff  law  of  18 16. 
He  was  ably  seconded  by  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Dallas,  who 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  18SS. 


made  a  report  to  Congress  recommending  an  increase  of  duties  not  for 
revenue  alone  but  for  the  express  purpose  of  giving  further  protection  to 
manufactures.     In  this  report  he  sa}-s: 

The  interests  of  agriculture  require  a  free  and  constant  access  to  a  market  for 
its  surplus,  and  a  ready  supply  of  all  the  articles  of  use  and  consumption  on  reasonable 
terms;  but  ike  national  interest  may  j-eqiiire  the  esiablis/iment  of  a  domestic  in 
preference  to  a  foreign  market,  and  the  employment  of  domestic  in  preference  to 
foreign  labor,  in  furnishing  the  necessary  supplies. 

The  Committee  of  Commerce  and  Manufacture  of  the  Fourteenth  Con- 
gress was  composed  of  Representatives  from  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island,  the 
North  and  South  being  equally  represented.  All  were  practical  men. 
They  considered  the  resources  of  the  country'  and  the  efforts  of  England 
to  break  down  our  industries.  The  high  duties  of  1812  imposed  to  meet 
the  demands  of  the  war  failed  in  their  object,  owing  to  the  cessation  of 
foreign  commerce,  especially  with  Great  Britain,  but  this  very  lack  of 
importations  was  a  blessing  because  of  the  impetus  given  to  the  manufac- 
turing of  articles  before  then  imported.  To  preserve  these  industries  that 
had  arisen  during  the  war  was  the  chief  concern  of  Congress  in  18 16. 

In  the  discussion  which  took  place  on  the  then  pending  tariff  bill 
can  be  found  frequent  allusions  to  an  American  policy  and  system  of  pro- 
tection. The  main  defence  of  the  bill  was  entrusted  to  John  C.  Calhoun, 
who  in  the  course  of  his  debate  referring  to  the  fact  that  since  the  close 
of  the  war  England  was  flooding  our  markets  with  her  goods,  said: 
"To  this  distressing  state  of  things  there  are  two  remedies,  and  only  two: 
one  in  our  power  immediately,  the  other  requiring  much  time  and  exer- 
tion; but  both  constituting,  in  my  opinion,  the  essential  policy  of  this 
country. ' '  The  bill  had  been  reported  unanimously  from  the  above  men- 
tioned committee  and  was  supported  by  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  day, 
including  Henry  Clay,  William  Lowndes,  Samuel  D.  Ingham  and  others 
besides  Mr.  Calhoun.  It  was  passed  in  the  House  by  a  vote  of  eighty- 
eight  to  fifty-four,  and  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  twenty-five  to  seven. 
Thirty-one  of  the  negative  votes  came  from  the  Southern  States  though 
it  is  not  contended  that  as  yet  any  sectional  opinion  as  such  had  arisen 
on  the  tariff  question. 

It  matters  not  what  was  the  effect  of  the  bill  on  the  prosperity  of  the 
country.  It  was  meant  to  be  a  thoroughly  protective  measure  and  was 
supposed  to  be  framed  with  duties  high  enough  to  give  encouragement 
to  new  industries  and  protection  to  those  already  established.  That  it 
did  not  succeed  to  the  extent  anticipated  was  due  to  causes  unforeseen  at 
the  time  of  its  pas.sage.  England  now  realized  as  she  had  not  hitherto 
done  that  the  United  States  was  fast  becoming  a  manufacturing  nation. 
By  the  Embargo  and  Non-Intercourse  Acts  and  the  War  of  1812,  England 
had  been  deprived  of  our  market  much  to  her  loss  and  our  gain.     We 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


had  been  compelled  to  rely  upon  ourselves,  and  with  the  passage  of  the 
thoroughly  protective  tariff  of  i8i6webade  fair  to  continue  and  preserve 
by  protection  what  we  had  gained  by  prohibition  and  war.  It  would 
never  do  to  lose  the  American  market  without  a  struggle  and  England 
was  peculiarly  prepared  at  this  time  to  make  a  most  vigorous  attack  upon 
our  industries.  She  was  overburdened  with  accumulated  goods  of  all 
kinds  and  her  leaders  saw  the  opportunity  to  overwhelm  us  with  cheap 
wares,  of  which  they  were  not  slow  to  take  advantage.  The  matter  was 
brought  before  parliament,  and  though  a  part  of  the  oft-quoted  .speech  of 
Lord  Brougham  has  been  used  elsewhere  in  these  pages,  it  was  at  this 
time  that  the  speech  was  made  and  its  suggestions  first  carried  out.  The 
sentence  that  Americans  should  always  have  in -mind  when  considering 
England's  policy  toward  this  countrj%  is  as  follows:  " /i  is  worth 
while  to  incur  a  loss  2ip07i  the  first  exportation,  in  order,  by  the  glut,  to 
stifle  in  the  cradle  those  infa^it  manufactures  in  the  United  States,  which 
the  war  has  forced  into  existence.''  The  system  of  commercial  warfare, 
the  battle  of  fabrics,  referred  to  by  Lord  Brougham,  should  not  be 
lost  sight  of  in  framing  an  economic  policy  for  a  country.  The  fact 
that  free  and  fair  competition  does  not  exist  and  is  wholly  disre- 
garded by  commercial  rivals;  the  fact  that  strong  and  powerful  pro- 
ducers take  advantage  of  conditions  and  overwhelm  and  deliberately  ruin 
weaker  competitors,  and  then,  after  securing  the  market,  raise  the  price 
of  their  commodities  and  compel  consumers  to  make  good  the  loss  which 
their  successful  rivals  have  incurred  in  order  to  secure  a  monopoly 
of  trade,  is  entirely  lost  sight  of  and  little  understood  by  many  who 
have  been  misled  by  the  plausible  theory  of  free  trade.  The  deliberate 
exercise  of  this  unfair  method  played  a  large  part  in  arousing  the 
American  people  to  the  necessities  of  raising  a  protective  barrier 
to  shield  the  labor  and  capital  of  the  country  from  such  invasion  of  the 
country. 

Not  only  did  England  glut  our  markets  with  the  cheapest  of  wares, 
but  she  adopted  other  measures  tending  still  further  to  destroy  our  indus- 
tries.    Says  Niles  in  his  history: 

It  is  notorious  that  great  .sums  of  money  were  expended  bj- the  British  to  destroy 
our  flocks  of  sheep,  that  they  might  thereby  ruin  our  manufactories.  They  bought 
up  and  immediately  slaughtered  great  numbers  of  sheep ;  they  bought  our  best 
machinery  and  sent  it  off  to  England,  and  hired  our  best  mechanics  and  most  skill- 
ful workmen  to  go  to  England,  simply  to  get  them  out  of  this  country,  and  so 
hinder  and  destroy  our  existing  and  prospective  manufactures. 

Weighted  down  as  we  were,  by  a  large  war  debt,  with  our  markets 
continually  filled  with  English  wares,  we  suffered  from  a  ruinous  drain 
of  specie.  Our  import  duties,  intended  though  they  were  to  keep  out 
foreign  goods,  were  far  too  low  to  accomplish  that  end  and  we  were  at 
England's  mercy.     Our  debt  had  increa.sed  from  5^45, 000,000  in  1812  to 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  183.3. 


$127,000,000    in    1816.      Our   imports   in    1814    amounted    to  less    than 
$13,000,000.     In  the  four  j-ears  succeeding  they  were  as  follows: 

1815 $113,041,274 

l,Sl6 147,103,000 

1S17, 99,250,000 

1818, 121,750,000 

Our  exports  for  these  four  years  amounted  to  $252,000,000,  a  balance 
against  us  of  $229,000,000  which  had  to  be  paid  for  in  specie  as  we  were 
unable  to  settle  the  account  in  goods.  Our  condition  became  mo.st  deplor- 
able.    Says  Benton,  writing  of  this  period  later: 

No  price  for  property ;  no  sales  except  those  of  the  sheriff  and  the  marshal ;  no 
employment  for  industry;  no  demand  for  labor;  no  sale  for  the  products  of  the 
farm  ;  no  sound  of  the  hammer,  except  that  of  the  auctioneer  knocking  down  prop- 
erty. Distress  was  the  universal  cry  of  the  people ;  relief,  the  universal  demand, 
was  thundered  at  the  doors  of  all  legislatures,  State  and  Federal. 

Though  a  protective  tariff  law  intended  as  such  had  been  enacted, 
>et  it  really  was  a  free  trade  statute  and  brought  about  a  free  trade 
period.  It  matters  not  how  high  an  import  duty  may  be,  if  it  is  not 
sufficiently  high  to  keep  out  foreign  goods,  it  is  not  protective.  No  duty 
is  protective  if  the  foreign  manufacturer  is  willing  to  pay  this  duty, 
sacrificing  his  own  profit,  and  sell  us  his  goods  cheaper  than  we  can  make 
theiii,  in  order  to  ruin  our  industries  and  then  step  in  and  control  the 
market.  A  tariff,  however  high,  is  still  a  low  tariff  when  it  will  not  prevent 
the  importation  of  manufactures  that  should  be  made  at  home.  In  18 16 
young  as  were  our  industries  and  small  as  was  our  population,  70,000 
operatives  were  discharged  and  made  idle  or  driven  to  the  farms.  The 
agriculturist  thereby  not  only  lost  his  market  but  had  to  divide  his  profits 
so  that  his  productions  hardly  paid  for  the  marketing. 

Prices,  especially  of  agricultural  products,  continued  to  fall  rapidly 
throughout  1819,  for  the  European  harvests  were  again  abundant  and  the 
English  Corn  Laws  began  to  have  their  effect.  That  general  readju-st- 
ment  of  industry  and  scaling  down  of  prices,  inevitable  after  the  long 
and  costly  Napoleonic  wars,  fell  now  with  crushing  weight  on  the  Ameri- 
can ship-owner  and  farmer.  It  is  during  the  decade  from  1819  to  1828, 
inclusive,  that  we  may  trace  the  very  rapid  growth  of  sentiment  in  favor 
of  the  "American  System,"  as  the  writers  and  speakers  of  that  daj' 
delighted  to  call  it.  As  a  prominent  writer  says:  "The  distress  that 
followed  the  crisis  of  18 18- 19  brought  out  a  plentiful  crop  of  pamphlets 
in  favor  of  protection,  of  societies  and  conventions  for  the  promotion  of 
domestic  industry,  of  petitions  and  memorials  to  Congress  for  higher 
duties." 

Of  the  protective  literature  of  this  epoch  there  is  nothing  better  or 
more  to  the  point  than  an  "Address  of  the  Society  of  Tammany,   or 

37 


TARIFF  QVESriOX  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Columbian  Order,  to  Its  Absent  Members  and  the  Members  of  the  Several 
Branches  Throughout  the  United  States. ' '  From  this  address  the  follow- 
ing is  taken : 

Brothers:  A  deep  shadow  has  passed  over  our  land,  a  commercial  and  individ- 
ual gloom  has  created  a  universal  stillness.  In  our  remotest  villages  the  hammer 
is  not  heard,  and  in  our  large  cities  the  din  and  bustle  of  thrifty  industry  has 
ceased.  A  remedy  for  this  evil  would  be  precious  as  rubies  to  him  who  values  the 
institutions  of  the  country,  and  glories  in  its  indigenous  greatness.  It  is  the  most 
grateful  to  the  American  ear  and  nearest  to  the  American  heart ;  it  is  the  encour- 
agement of  our  own  manufactures. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  year  1819  a  convention  of  the  "Friends 
of  National  Industry  ' '  assembled  in  the  City  of  New  York,  at  which 
were  present  delegates  from  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  IMassachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut  and 
Ohio.  That  indefatigable  champion  of  protection,  Mathew  Carey,  acted 
as  secretary.     On  motion,  it  was  recorded: 

That  it  be  recommended  in  the  most  earnest  manner,  to  the  manufacturers  and 
their  fellow  citizens  in  the  different  States,  to  form  societies  for  the  encouragement 
of  domestic  industry;  and  to  call  a  convention  in  each  State  on  the  third  Monday 
m  December  following,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  rise,  progress  and  decay 
of  manufactures  throughout  the  Union. 

A  memorial  was  then  ordered  to  be  transmitted  to  Congress  and 
printed.  The  memorial  itself  portrays  vividly  the  existing  prostration 
of  manufactures,  concluding  as  follows: 

While  so  manj-  of  our  manufacturers  are  thus  ruined — our  working  people  desti- 
tute of  employment  and  of  the  means  to  support  their  families — and  our  water 
powers,  with  which  we  are  pre-eminently  blessed,  unemployed ;  our  cities  and 
towns  are  filled  with  the  manufactured  productions  of  other  nations,  by  which  we 
have  been  and  are  ruinou.sly  drained  of  our  wealth.  That  these  complicated  evils 
which  oppress  us,  and  which  have  taken  place  during  a  season  of  profound  peace 
of  nearly  five  years'  duration,  after  a  war  closed  with  honor  which  left  us  in  a  state 
of  high  prosperity,  evince  that  there  is  something  radically  unsound  in  our  policy, 
which  requires  a  radical  remedy,  in  the  power  of  the  national  legislature  alone  to 
supply. 

A  comparative  table  of  British  and  American  import  duties  on  manu- 
factured goods  was  appended,  showing  that  the  British  rates  averaged 
over  four  times  the  American  rates.  Early  in  1820  a  determined  effort 
was  made  to  change  the  tariff.  A  committee  on  manufactures  had  been 
appointed  on  December  8,  18 19,  by  the  House  of  Repre.sentatives,  and 
petitions  and  memorials  were  almost  daily  pouring  in ;  but  it  was  not 
until  the  twenty-second  of  March,  1820,  that  the  .subject  was  finally  taken 
up.  The  bill  presented  by  the  Connnittee  on  Manufactures  having  been 
read  in  the  House,  on  the  twenty-first  of  April,  Mr.  Baldwin,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, chairman  of  the  committee,  .spoke  in  its  defence: 

If  this  bill,  said  Mr.  Baldwin,  either  in  its  general  principles  or  in  its  details, 
cannot  be  supported  on  national   principles,  we  are  willing  that  it  shall  fall.     We 


EAELY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1833. 


have  thought  that  this  nation  can  never  be  flourishing  and  independent  unless  it 
can  supply  from  its  own  resources  its  food,  ,its  clothing,  and  the  means  of  defence ; 
that  to  be  dependent  upon  foreign  nations  for  the  articles  essential  for  these  pur- 
poses, is  inconsistent  with  true  policy,  and  that  the  system  which  has  entailed 
on  us  this  dependence  must  be  radically  changed.  The  present  is  not  a  forced, 
but  the  natural  settled  state  of  the  country ;  and  it  requires  no  reasoning  to  prove 
that  measures  calculated  on  a  general  war  in  Europe  will  not  suit  a  general  state  of 
peace ;  they  must  and  -will  be  controlled  by  circumstances. 

Gentlemen  tell  us  of  the  advantage  of  a  free  exchange  of  the  produce  of  the 
world ;  but  they  tell  us  of  that  which  never  existed,  does  not  exist,  and  perhaps 
never  will  exist.  They  invite  us  to  give  perfect  freedom  on  our  side,  while  in  the 
ports  of  every  other  nation  vfe  are  met  with  a  code  of  odious  restrictions,  shutting 
out  entirely  a  great  part  of  our  produce  and  letting  in  only  so  much  as  they  cannot 
do  without.  If  the  governing  consideration  were  cheapness,  if  national  independ- 
ence were  to  weigh  nothing,  if  honor  nothing,  why  not  subsidize  foreign  powers  to 
defend  us?  Why  not  hire  Swiss  and  Hessian  armies  to  protect  us?  We  should 
probably  consult  economy  by  these  dangerous  expedients. 

I  repeat  it,  let  us  proclaim  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  the  incontestable 
truth  that  our  foreign  trade  must  be  circumscribed  by  the  altered  state  of  the  world  ; 
and  leaving  it  in  possession  of  all  the  gains  which  it  can  now  possibly  make,  let 
us  present  motives  to  the  capital  and  labor  of  our  country  to  employ  themselves  in 
fabrications  at  home. 

Referring  to  works  on  political  economy,  Henry  Clay  said  with 
fine  sarcasm : 

I,  too,  sometimes  amuse  myself  with  the  visions  of  those  writers,  as  I  do  with 
those  of  metaphysicians  and  novelists;  and  if  I  do  not  forget,  one  of  the  best  among 
them  enjoins  upon  a  country  to  protect  its  industries  against  the  injurious  influ- 
ence operating  upon  it  from  the  prohibitions  and  restrictions  of  foreign  countries. 
The  war  of  our  Revolution  effected  our  political  emancipation ;  the  last  war 
contributed  greatly  toward  achieving  our  commercial  freedom ;  but  our  entire 
independence  will  only  be  consummated  after  the  policy  of  this  bill  shall  be  recog- 
nized and  adopted. 

Among  the  political  pamphlets  that  appeared  during  this  year  of 
tariff  agitation  was  a  "Circtilar  and  Address  of  the  National  Institution 
for  Promoting  Industry  in  the  United  States,"  to  their  fellow-citizens. 
This  pamphlet  attacks  the  current  interpretations  of  Adam  Smith's 
economic  doctrines,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  freedom  of  trade ;  and  goes 
on  to  show  the  expediency  and  justice  of  protecting  home  manufactures. 
Another  pamphlet  of  the  year  1820  worthy  of  mention,  was  a  stir- 
ring address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  called  by  its  author 
"Plain  Sense  on  National  Industry."  In  one  place  the  author  says: 
"Adam  Smith  7v>-ofe  and  the  British  Government  adcd,  taking  care 
to  have  Mr.  Smith's  book  sent  to  foreign  countries  and  translated  into 
foreign  languages.  These  countries  were  much  influenced  by  it,  while 
Great  Britain  practiced  directly  against  it." 

The  tariff  bill  finally  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  April 
28,  1820,  the  vote  .standing  ninety  to  sixty-nine.     It  was  twice  read  in 


TMUFF  QVESriOX  IN  THE  UMTED  STATES. 


the  Senate  on  May  i,  and  three  days  later  was  postponed  indefinitely,  by 
a  bare  majority,  twenty-two  to  twenty-one.  But  little  eiTort  was  made 
to  increase  the  tariff  until  early  in  1824,  when,  on  the  eleventh  of  Feb- 
ruary, the  House  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  to  amend 
the  several  acts  for  imposing  duties  on  imports. 

We  have  now  come  to  the  year  which  was  to  .see  enacted  the  first 
di.stinctly  protective  tariff — that  of  1S24.  The  tariff  bill  of  this  year  was 
passed  by  a  combination  of  Middle  and  Western  States,  together  with 
Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut.  The  South  was  strongly  in  opposition. 
It  will  now  be  in  order  to  examine  the  educational  forces  that  were  at 
work  throughout  the  country,  both  upon  the  people  and  upon  their  repre- 
sentatives in  Congress,  during  the  early  months  of  1824.  There  was  one 
publication  of  that  time  which  seems  to  comprehend  and  sum  up  all  the 
current  arguments  and  pleas  in  behalf  of  a  protective  policy.  It  was  a 
sixteen-page  serial  pamphlet  called  "The  Political  Econonii.st, "  edited  by 
Mathew  Carey,  father  of  Henry  C.  Carey.  It  was  published  weekly  in 
Philadelphia,  from  January  24,  to  April  24,  except  that  no  number 
appeared  from  February  28  to  March  20.  Each  number  was  headed  with 
this  quotation  from  "The  Wealth  of  Nations:"  "Whatever  tends  to 
diminish  in  any  countrj-  the  number  of  artificers  and  manufacturers, 
tends  to  diminish  the  home  market,  the  most  important  of  all  markets 
for  produce  of  the  land ;  and  thereby,  still  further  discourage  agriculture. ' ' 
The  -second  article  of  the  first  number  was  a  comparison  of  the  policy 
of  Great  Britain  with  that  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  manu- 
factures. To  make  this  comparison  more  forcible,  the  "deadly  parallel" 
was  employed.  There  was  a  .series  of  letters  written  b>-  Mathew  Carey  on 
the  .subject,  "Extravagant  Importations  the  Bane  of  National  Prosperity,  " 
and  signed  "Hamilton."     He  began  by  assuming,  as  undeniable: 

(i)  That  this  country  enjoys  advantages — natural,  moral  and  political — never 
excelled  and  rarely  equaled;  (2)  that  a  nation  possessing  such  transcendent 
advantages,  and  free  from  the  desolation  of  war,  famine  and  pestilence, 
could  not —  except  under  a  policy  radically  unsound — fail  to  enjoy  uninterrupted 
prosperity. 

■  He  gave  statistics  and  arguments  to  prove  that  the  financial  depre.s- 
sion  and  wide-spread  suffering  had  been  due  to  over-importation,  result- 
ing in  a  constant  drain  of  specie  and  the  breakdown  of  American 
manufactures,  and  concludes  as  follows: 

Since  the  first  formation  of  government,  there  probably  never  was  a  greater 
sacrifice  made  of  national  wealth  and  prosperity  or  of  individual  happiness  in  a 
time  of  peace; — and  never  had  the  rulers  of  a  free  people  a  heavier  account  tosettle 
with  history  and  posterity,  by  whom  the  pernicious  system  we  pursue  will  be  duly 
appreciated. 

"A  Memorial  of  the  Farmers,  Mechanics  and  Merchants  of  the 
County  of  Rensselaer,  New  York,"  praying  for  a  revision  of  the  tariffs; 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1833. 


and  ail  extract  from  an  address  delivered  before  an  agricultural  society  of 
Northampton,  Mass.,  were  among  the  contributions  to  the  "  Political 
Economist.".  There  was  also  a  unique  series  of  articles  entitled  "The 
Wealth  of  Nations,"  under  which  head  were  presented — to  use  the  words 
of  the  author — 

Those  sound  maxims  of  political  economy  by  the  practice  of  which  the  pros- 
perous nations  of  Europe  have  attained  to  the  high  degree  of  wealth,  power  and 
resources  which  they  have  enjoyed.  They  (the  maxims  quoted)  shall  all  be  simple 
and  intelligible,  and  from  the  most  unexceptionable  authorities. 

Among  the  works  quoted  from  were  Alexander  Hamilton's  "Report 
on  Manufactures,"  Anderson,  "On  Industrj-,"  Jefferson's  "Report  on 
United  States  Commerce  in  Foreign  Countries, "  and  others.  Through- 
out the  "Political  Economist"  runs  a  series  of  "Examinations"  of  Judge 
Cooper's  "Tract  on  a  Modification  of  the  Tariff. "  In  1S23  Judge  Cooper, 
at  that  time  president  of  Columbia  College,  S.  C,  had  appeared  as  the 
relentless  enemy  of  the  manufacturers,  whom  he  characterized  as  "an 
associating,  club-meeting,  committee-forming,  paragraph-writing,  memo- 
rializing, urging,  teasing  set  of  men,"  governed  solely  by  their  own 
interests.  And  he  even  went  so  far  as  to  hint  darkly  that  the  South 
would  not  submit  to  further  protection  of  the  manufacturing  interests. 
This  same  Thomas  Cooper  was,  in  1813,  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Pennsylvania,  at  which  time  he  had  published  his  views  on  the  tariff, 
giving  lucid  and  forcible  arguments  in  favor  of  protection  to  manufac- 
tures. Another  series  of  articles  is  signed  "A  Looker-on, ' '  and  a  foot-note 
says  that  the  writer  is  a  Southern  planter.  His  breadth  of  view  and 
liberality  of  sentiment  will  be  shown  from  the  following  quotation : 

There  is  too  much  capital  and  skill  employed  in  every  department  of  political 
economy  in  Europe  to  be  rivaled  here  without  some  aid  in  the  commencement. 
Dint  of  circumstances  alone  cannot  be  depended  upon  to  overcome  the  mass  of 
experience  that  Europe  presents.  To  develop  and  bring  into  requisition  the  extra- 
ordinary resources  of  the  country'  calls  for  federation  aid — calls  for  premiums  and 
temporary  sacrifices.  ShaU  we  let  such  masses  of  iron,  copper,  lead,  zinc,  coal  and 
salt — materials  connected  with  our  very  independence — slumber  in  the  bowels  of  the 
earth,  when  a  little  protection,  a  little  sacrifice,  would  bring  them  all  in  active 
production.  And  is  it  extraordinary  that  we  should  ask  our  government  to  aid  in 
developing  our  own  resources? 

The  last  number  of  the  "Political  Economist"  was  entirely  devoted 
to  Henry  Clay's  great  speech  delivered  before  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, March  30  and  31,  1824.  Of  all  the  economic  ideas  enunciated  in 
the  course  of  this  remarkable  speech,  it  will  be  possible  to  notice  only 
one  or  two  in  addition  to  the  one  already  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter.  He  said,  "The  great  desideratum  in  political  economy  is  the 
same  as  in  private  pursuits,  /.  e.,  what  is  the  best  application  of  the 
aggregate  industry  of  a  nation  that  can  be  made  honestly  to  produce  the 
largest   sum    of    national    wealth?"      And  then    in    somewhat   different 


TARIFF  QFESTJOX  IX  THE  FXITED  STATES. 


phraseology  he  enunciates  Professor  List's  doctrine  of  the  importance  to 
a  nation  of  a  gain  in  productive  power,  saying,  "The  object  of  wise  gov- 
ernments shall  be  by  sound  legislation  so  to  protect  the  industry  of  their 
own  citizens  against  the  policy  of  foreign  powers  as  to  give  it  the  most 
expansive  force  in  the  production  of  wealth."  Near  the  close  of  his 
speech  he  took  occasion  to  eulogize  Mr.  Mathew  Carey  as  follows: 

I  hope  I  shall  give  no  offence  in  quoting  from  a  work  of  Wathew  Carey,  of 
whom  I  seize  with  great  pleasure  the  occasion  to  say  that  he  merits  the  public 
gratitude  for  the  disinterested  diligence  with  which  he  has  collected  a  large  mass 
of  highly  useful  facts,  and  for  the  clear  and  convincing  reasoning  with  which  he 
generally  illustrates  them. 

During  the  years  1S25  and  1826  the  question  of  the  tariff  was  not  a 
prominent  one  in  American  politics  but  the  excitement  springs  up  afresh 
in  1827,  and  the  pamphleteering  becomes  as  vigorous  and  as  prolific  as 
ever.  An  important  document  was  an  "Examination  of  a  Memorial 
from  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Charleston,  S.  C  Against  Increasing 
Tariff  Rates."  This  "examination"  was  a  series  of  five  pamphlets,  signed 
"Jefferson"  (who,  it  was  thought,  was  Mathew  Carey).  Each  of  the 
following  arguments  against  the  protective  system,  which  had  been  used 
in  the  "memorial"  are  taken  up  and  refuted  in  detail: 

1.  That  it  will  provoke  retaliation. 

2.  That  it  will  impair  the  national  revenue. 

3.  That  it  is  uucon.stitutional. 

4.  That  it  will  tax  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few. 

5.  That  it  will  impose  unequal  burdens  on  the  different  classes  of  society. 

6.  That  it  will  introduce  smuggling. 

7.  That  it  will  tend  to  abridge  the  foreign  market. 

In  the  third  number  of  the  series  the  author  turns  aside  from  the 
main  purpose  of  the  "examination"  to  reply  with  spirit  and  eminent 
fairness  to  a  speech  of  Judge  Cooper  on  the  tariff,  which  had  appeared  in 
a  Southern  newspaper  on  the  thirteenth  of  thAt  month  (July,  1827). 
He  says: 

Already  threats  of  resi.stance  and  glances  at  separation  far  from  ver>-  obscure 
appear  in  your  papers  and  appear  in  the  declamations  of  your  orators,  and  are  not 
regarded  with  the  abhorrence  to  which  they  fairly  lay  claim.  Let  me  implore  you, 
gentlemen,  by  the  immortal  memory  of  the  illustrious  Wa.shington— by  the  salvation 
and  prosperity  of  the  blessed  country  we  enjoy— by  everything  else  you  hold  near 
and  dear— and  I  was  going  to  add,  by  all  your  hopes  of  happiness  here  and  here- 
after—to pause  in  your  career.  Do  not  kindle  infinite  passions  between  brethren  of 
the  .same  family. 

But  the  vSouth  was  by  no  means  as  yet  a  unit  in  its  opposition  to  the 
"American  vSy.stem."  "The  Question  of  the  TantT  Di.scussed," 
is  the    heading    of     a    pamphlet   which    was    published    in    Charleston, 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  1S3S. 

S.  C,  and  contained  as  a  sort  of  preface  the  following  "Address  to  the 
Public:" 

A  number  of  your  fellow  citizens,  esteeming  the  following  communication — 
which  originally  appeared  during  the  last  summer  in  the  Charleston  Courier  and 
City  Gazette — calculated  to  extend  a  more  correct  understanding  and  better 
information  upon  the  subject  of  their  discussion  than  at  present  to  be  found,  have 
taken  the  liberty  of  collecting  them  together  and  submitting  them  in  their  present 
form.  They  are  aware  of  the  excitement  which  prevails  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
tariffs  and  protecting  duties;  but  believing,  as  they  conscientiouslj'  do,  that  the 
ill-feeling  which  has  embittered  party  distinction  throughout  the  country  owes  its 
origin  in  a  great  measure  to  prejudice  or  misrepresentation,  they  respectfully  offer 
to  your  candid  and  serious  consideration  this  brief  synopsis  of  the  facts  and  argu- 
ments upon  which  their  own  convictions  are  based.  They  are,  in  fine,  anxious  for 
the  establishment  of  truth  and  the  promotion  and  prosperity  and  independence  of 
our  common  country. 

The  communication  to  the  "Courier",  signed  "Old  '76" — included 
extracts  from  the  public  utterances  of  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison, 
and  Monroe,  each  of  whom,  saj-s  the  writer,  warmly  advocated  the 
"American  System" — the  old  Republican  system,  when  men  were  proud 
to  wear  homespun.  Franklin,  Hamilton,  and  even  Adam  Smith,  were 
made  to  fall  in  line  in  support  of  protection  to  home  industries.  The 
term  "American  System"  appears  in  this  series  of  articles  at  every  avail- 
able opportunity. 

Another  important  addition  to  the  tariff  literature  of  1827  was  an 
"Essay  on  the  Expediency  and  Practicability  of  Improving  or  Creating 
Home  Markets  for  the  Sale  of  Agricultural  Productions  and  Raw  Mate- 
rials, by  the  Introduction  and  Growth  of  Artisans  and  Manufacturers," 
by  George  Tibbits,  of  New  York.  The  writer  quotes  liberally  from 
Smith  and  Say,  showing  their  inconsistency  of  argument;  and  he 
attempts  to  show  from  their  writings — as  well  as  from  tho.se  of  Ricardo — 
the  indispensable  necessity  of  manufactures  to  the  landed  interest,  to 
the  internal  and  external  commerce  of  the  country,  to  the  revenue  from 
duties  on  imports,  and  to  the  political  consideration,  strength  and  power 
of  the  government.  A  series  of  letters  entitled  "Outlines  of  American 
Political  Economy, ' '  were  addressed  by  Frederick  List,  formerly  professor 
of  Political  Economy  at  the  University  of  Tiibingen  in  Wiirtemberg,  to 
Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  vice-president  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  National  Industry.  At  the  time  of  writing  these  letters, 
Professor  List  was  residing  at  Reading,  Pa.  His  attention  being  drawn 
to  the  subject  of  the  Harrisburg  Convention — soon  to  assemble — he  vol- 
untarily addressed  the  series  of  letters  to  Mr.  Ingersoll.  He  began  by 
saying : 

After  having  perused  the  different  addresses  of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  National  Industry,  the  different  speeches  delivered  in  Congress  on 
that  subject,  etc.,  it  would  be  but  arrogance  for  me  to  attempt  a  further  supply  of 
matters  so  ingeniously  and  shrewdly  illustrated  by  the  first  politicians  of  the  nation. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATE 


I  confine  tny  exertions,  therefore,  solely  to  a  refutation  of  the  theory  of  Adam 
Smith  &  Co.,  the  fundamental  errors  of  which  have  not  yet  been  understood  so 
clearly  as  they  ought  to  be. 

I  am  disposed  to  assail  the  main  pillars  of  the  S3'stem  of  Messrs.  Smith  &  Say, 
leaving  the  task  of  attacking  less  essential  points  to  those  who  feel  disposed  to 
overthrow  the  whole  building.  As  these  theorists  confounded  Cosmopolitan  prin- 
ciples with  Political  principles,  so  they  entirely  misapprehend  the  odj'ect  of  Political 
Economj-.  This  object  is  not  to  gain  matter — as  it  is  in  Individual  and  Cosmopoli- 
tan Economy — it  is  to  gain  production  and  political  power,  bj'  means  of  exchange 
with  other  nations;  or  to  prevent  the  depression  of  production  and  political  power 
by  restricting  that  exchange.  They  (the  theorists)  treat,  therefore,  primarily  of 
the  effects  of  the  exchange  of  matter,   instead  of  treating  of  productive  power. 

We  now  come  to  the  famous  Harrisburg  Convention  of  agriculturists, 
manufacturers,  and  others  friendly  to  the  encouragement  and  support  of 
the  domestic  industry  of  the  United  States,  which  convened  at  the  Capitol 
at  Harrisburg,  on  Monday,  July  30,  1827.  Delegates  were  present  from 
all  the  New  England  States,  except  Maine,  which  sent  a  letter,  from 
the  Middle  States  as  far  south  as  Virginia,  and  from  Kentucky  and  Ohio. 
Prominent  among  the  delegates  from  Pennsylvania  were  Mathew  Carey 
and  Charles  J.  Ingersoll.  This  convention  had  been  recommended  bj'' 
and  was  largely  due  to  the  efforts  of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  the  Pr<3- 
motion  of  National  Industry.  Early  in  the  session  the  following  resolu- 
tions were  unanimously  adopted : 

Resolved,  (l)  That  a  committee  of  nine  persons  be  appointed  to  inquire  into, 
and  submit  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  at  the  next  session  thereof,  such 
facts  as  they  may  be  able  to  collect  tending  to  show  the  injurious  effects  on  domes- 
tic industry  of  the  existing  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States.  (2)  That  a  similar 
inquiiy  be  made  in  relation  to  the  effect  of  domestic  manufactures  upon  the  navi- 
gation and  commercial  interests  of  the  countrj-. 

Among  the  results  of  this  convention  were  the  issuing  of  an  address 
to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  accompanied  by  numerous  statistical 
tables,  and  the  submitting  of  a  memorial  to  Congress  containing  a 
schedule  of  tariff  duties  satisfactory  to  the  convention.  The  suggestions 
related  specifically  to  wool  and  woolen  goods,  with  incidental  mention  of 
iron,  flax,  hemp,  cotton,  and  distilled  spirits.  The  outcome  was  the  tariff 
law  of  1828  in  favor  of  which  petitions  and  memorials  without  number 
were  poured  into  Congress  from  nearly  every  State  in  the  Union,  prior 
to  its  passage.  We  have  now  seen  how  the  idea  of  protection  to  Ameri- 
can industries — once  the  demand  of  a  few  manufacturers,  and  almost 
unheeded  in  the  halls  of  Congress — had  grown  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
till  it  had  lost  itself  in  the  larger  and  grander  conception  of  an  "American 
System."  In  the  words  of  Professor  List:  "American  common  sense 
had  at  last  made  a  sy.stem  of  Political  Economy  of  her  own,  and  for  her- 
self, and  had  sent  the  founders  of  the  pseudo-Co.smopolitical  system  to 
the  Westminster  Abbey  of  the  .science." 


EARLY  TARIFF  HISTORY  TO  18.13. 


The  postponement  of  the  tariff  question  in  1820  was  a  severe  disap- 
pointment. In  1822  another  attempt  was  made  to  increase  the  duties  but 
was  not  carried  through.  In  1823,  however,  the  demand  of  the  countrj- 
was  so  great  that  it  could  no  longer  remain  unheeded  and  a  bill  largely 
increasing  duties  became  a  law  and  went  into  effect  July  11,  1824.  Pro- 
tection to  home  industries  became  the  issue  of  the  campaign  following 
and  John  C.  Calhoun  then  the  leading  champion  of  a  protective  tariff  was 
on  all  four  tickets  as  the  candidate  for  Vice-President.  Henry  Clay  advo- 
cated the  "American  System"  far  and  wide,  but  Daniel  Webster  was  as 
yet  in  favor  of  low  duties.  In  fact  most  of  New  England,  save  Rhode 
Island  and  Connecticut,  was  opposed  to  the  bill  of  1824,  being  fearful 
that  it  would  injure  its  shipping  interests.  But  the  effect  of  the  law 
was  so  instantaneous  and  beneficial  that  all  New  England  was  .soon  in 
favor  of  still  higher  duties  and  the  South  alone  remained  favorable  to  free 
trade.  It  was  at  this  period  that  sectional  feeling  began  to  grow  into  a 
flame.  The  growth  of  manufactures  in  the  North  only  served  to  increase 
the  feeling  there  in  favor  of  protection.  In  the  South  the  planters  becom- 
ing jealous  and  fearing  that  their  fast  increasing  cotton  trade  would  be 
injured  listened  to  the  dogmas  of  English  writers,  dogmas  that  England 
would  not  then  listen  to  or  heed  herself,  but  seeing  her  opportunity  to 
foment  discord  in  the  South,  did  so  and  most  effectually.  For  three 
years  following  the  tariff  of  1824  every  trick  of  trade  in  which  she  has 
ever  been  most  adept  was  resorted  to  by  England  to  break  down  our 
industries.  But  at  this  time  the  attempt  was  unsuccessful.  The  country 
was  daily  acquiring  a  home  market,  the  foundation  of  the  now  well-devel- 
oped system.  The  greatest  activity  prevailed,  and  best  of  all,  a  large 
rise  in  wages  took  place  which  increased  the  spendable  income  of  the 
people  and  added  to  the  value  and  stability  of  the  home  market.  The 
tariff  of  1824,  however,  was  full  of  defects,  particularly  the  ad  valorem 
rates  which  resulted  in  undervaluations  and  fraudulent  invoices  to  the 
great  injury  of  domestic  industries.  The  people  were  then  prepared  for 
the  "highest  and  most  protective  tariff  ever  adopted,"  as  Horace  Greeley 
termed  it,  the  tariff  of  1828.  This  measure  received  the  support  of  Mar- 
tin Van  Buren,  Richard  M.  Johnson,  John  H.  Eaton,  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
Silas  Wright,  Jr.,  James  Buchanan  and  William  Hendricks,  the  most 
prominent  and  influential  Democratic  leaders  of  the  Northern  and  border 
States.  It  matters  not  that  it  was  called  by  its  enemies  "the  Tariff  of 
Abominations."  It  gave  a  still  further  impetus  to  the  country's  pros- 
perity. It  gave  more  employment  to  the  people.  It  gave  higher  wages 
to  the  laborer.  It  gave  wealth  and  wonderful  growth  to  the  nation.  The 
era  following  1824  was  one  of  great  progress  and  benefit.  Says  Henry 
Clay  in  1832:  "If  the  term  of  seven  years  were  to  be  selected  of  the 
greatest  prosperity  which  this  people  have  enjoyed  since  the  estab- 
lishment  of   the   present  constitution,   it  would  be  exactly  that   period 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


of  seven  j-ears  which  immediately  followed  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of 
1824." 

In  1832  a  so-called  modifying  bill  was  passed  but  the  thoroughly 
protective  features  of  the  bills  of  1824  and  1828  were  not  materially 
changed.  In  only  two  years  previous  to  1825  had  the  balance  of  trade 
been  in  our  favor.  In  the  year  following  the  tariff  of  1824  as  well  as  in 
1827,  1829  and  1830  our  exports  exceeded  our  imports.  The  public  debt 
had  rapidly  disappeared,  having  been  reduced  from  $90,000,000  in  1824 
to  $7,000,000  in  1833,  and  was  practically  cleared  off  in  the  two  years 
following.  In  1830-31  the  revenues  so  exceeded  the  expenditures  as  to 
leave  a  surplus  in  the  treasury.  It  is  difficult  to  show  the  effect  of  the 
tariffs  of  1824  and  1828  upon  our  industries  as  completely  as  can  be  done 
in  these  days.  No  census  previous  to  1840  gave  any  complete  returns. 
From  Macgregor's  ' '  Commercial  Statistics, ' '  however,  we  can  learn  the  fol- 
lowing: The  value  of  cotton  manufactures  in  1831  amounted  to$32, 036, 760, 
the  exports.being  $1,126,313.  Our  total  exports  of  manufactures  amounted 
to  $7,147,364  in  1831.  The  number  of  sheep  in  1831  was  20,000,000. 
The  quantity  of  wool  produced  was  about  50,000,000  pounds.  Thewoolen 
manufactures  of  that  time  amounted  to  about  $10,000,000;  flax  and  hemp 
manufactures  to  about  $6,000,000.  Leather  and  leather  manufactures  to 
about  $16,000,000;  cabinet  ware,  $10,000,000;  paper,  $6,000,000;  soap 
and  candles,  $10,000,000.  Regarding  the  production  of  iron  the  following 
will  show  the  increa.se  from  1810  to  1832; 

Tons  of  Iron  Produced. 

1810, 54,000 

1821 The  industry  was  ruined. 

1828 130,000 

1829 142,000 

1830 165,000 

1S31 191,000 

1S32, 200,000 

The  country  made  wonderful  .strides  during  the  operation  of  the 
protective  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828.  From  the  ruin  and  distress  of  1820 
we  had  again  become  a  prosperous  nation  in  1830.  The  American  system 
was  developing  fast.  The  home  market  was  becoming  year  by  year  of 
greater  proportions.  Wages  had  advanced  and  the  American  laborer 
was  even  then  enjoying  a  condition  unknown  elsewhere.  But  amidst 
all  this  prosperity  and  national  advancement  there  was  slowly  arising  a 
.sentiment  that  was  destined  to  play  a  most  important  part  in  the  nation's 
history. 


CHAPTER  II. 
Low  Tariffs,  1833  to  i860. 

The  campaign  of  1828  had  been  a  bitter  one  and  productive  of 
intense  feeling.  Some  of  the  features  of  the  campaign  were  unique. 
Both  candidates,  John  Quincy  Adams  and  Andrew  Jackson,  were 
accused  of  not  being  strong  enough  protectionists.  Mr.  Adams, 
though  a  thorough  protectionist,  had  not  been  aggressive  enough  to 
sati.sfy  even  many  of  his  own  friends.  Jackson's  letter  to  Coleman 
was  quoted  far  and  wide  and  he  was  hailed  as  the  great  champion 
of  the  ' '  American  Sy.stem. ' '  John  C.  Calhoun,  who  was  the  vice- 
presidential  candidate  on  the  ticket  with  Jackson,  had  for  some  time 
shown  a  leaning  toward  free  trade,  and  Jackson  no  doubt  gained  the 
electoral  vote  of  South  Carolina  because  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  election, 
however,  was  a  thorough  triumph  for  protection  and  Mr.  Jackson  became 
the  seventh  of  an  unbroken  line  of  presidents  who  advocated  and  sup- 
ported a  protective  tariff.  In  1S30  a  .small  surplus  existed  in  the  treasury 
and  it  became  a  matter  of  no  little  concern  to  the  administration.  Free 
traders  have  always  shown  hostility  to  a  surplus.  An  increasing  debt, 
an  empty  treasury,  an  issue  of  bonds  are  satisfactory'  conditions  to  a  free 
trader's  mind;  but  a  diminution  of  debt  and  a  surplus  of  revenue  is  cause 
for  the  deepest  concern.  The  free  traders  of  South  Carolina  under  the 
leadership  of  George  McDufiie,  were  now  muttering  about  the  unconsti- 
tutionality of  the  tariff.  It  was  the  first  time  the  issue  had  been  raised 
since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  and  the  passage  of  the  first  tariff  law 
in  1789.  Ex-President  Madison  had  declared  as  late  as  1828,  eleven  years 
after  the  close  of  his  presidential  term,  that  "A  further  evidence  of  the 
constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  protect  and  foster  manufactures  by 
regulations  of  trade  (an  evidence  that  ought  itself  to  settle  the  question), 
is  the  uniform  and  practical  sanction  given  to  that  power  for  nearly  fort}- 
years. ' ' 

Mr.  Jackson  met  the  issue  squarely.   In  his  message  of  1830,  he  said; 

Among  the  numerous  cau.se.s  of  congratulation,  the  condition  of  our  impost 
revenue  deserves  special  mention,  inasmuch  as  it  promises  the  means  of  extinguish- 
ing the  public  debt  sooner  than  was  anticipated,  and  furnishes  a  strong  illustration 
of  the  practical  effects  of  the  present  tariff  [that  of  182S]  upon  our  commercial 
interests.  The  object  of  the  tariff  is  objected  to  by  some  as  unconstitutional ; 
and  it  is  considered  by  almost  all  as  defective  in  many  of  its  parts.  The  power 
to  impose  duties  on  imports  originally  belonged  to  the  several  States.  The  right 
to  adjust  these  duties  with  a  view  to  the  encouragement  of  domestic  branches 
(587) 


TARIFF  qUESTION  IN  THE  V SITED  STATES. 


of  industry,  is  so  completely  identical  with  that  power,  that  it  is  diflacult  to 
suppose  the  existence  of  the  one  without  the  other.  The  States  have  delegated 
their  whole  authority  over  imports  to  the  general  government,  without  limitation 
or  restriction,  saving  the  very  inconsiderable  reservation  relating  to  the  inspection 
laws.  This  authority  having  thus  entirely  passed  from  the  States,  the  right  to 
exercise  it  for  the  purpose  of  protection  does  not  exist  in  them ;  and  consequently, 
if  it  is  not  possessed  by  the  general  government,  it  must  be  extinct.  Our  political 
system  would  thus  present  the  anomaly  of  a  people  stripped  of  the  right  to  foster 
their  own  industrv',  and  to  counteract  the  most  selli.sh  and  destructive  policy  which 
might  be  adopted  by  foreign  nations.  This  surely  cannot  be  the  case;  this 
indispensable  power,  thus  surrendered  by  the  States,  must  be  within  the  scope  of 
the  authority  on  the  subject  expressly  delegated  to  Congress. 

In  this  conclusion,  I  am  confirmed  as  well  by  the  opinions  of  Presidents  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson,  Madison  and  Monroe,  who  have  each  repeatedly  recommended 
the  exercise  of  this  right  under  the  Constitution,  as  by  the  uniform  practice  of 
Congress,  the  continued  acquiescence  of  the  States,  and  the  general  understanding 
of  the  people. 

But  the  free  trade  party  of  Sotith  Carolina  wa.s  becoming  more  and 
more  hostile  to  the  tariff,  and  sectional  controvers}'  and  strife  were 
imminent.  In  December,  1831,  as  soon  as  Congress  convened,  the  battle 
of  words  began.  The  tariff  of  1832,  intended  as  a  conciliator}-  measure, 
failed  of  its  object,  and  the  feeling  in  certain  portions  of  the  South 
became  more  and  more  bitter.  Whether  it  wasdue  to  a  jealousy  of  the 
North  and  its  prosperous  manufactures,  or  to  the  fear  that  the  now  rapidly 
growing  cotton  industry  of  the  South  would  suffer,  or  to  the  influence  of 
England,  can  hardly  be  stated ;  probably  all  three  causes  added  to  the 
flame.  The  speech  of  Robert  Y.  Hayne  in  1830,  denotmcing  the  whole 
revenue  system  and  attacking  the  administration,  was  well  replied  to  by 
Mr.  Webster,  but  the  fight  went  on. 

Mr.  McDuffie  had  been  appointed  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  in  1832,  and  his  infltience  was  far-reaching.  The  report 
made  by  the  committee  was  the  first  attempt  to  give  recognition  to  an 
organized  free  trade  party  in  the  United  States.  Much  was  said  about 
foreign  markets  being  the  natural  markets  for  the  cotton-growing  States 
and  a  specious  plea  was  made  for  the  "free  intercourse  of  the  Southern 
planters  with  their  natural  markets  abroad."  To  show  the  animus  of 
the  report  the  following  will  suffice: 

It  would  be  worse  than  voluntary  blindness  in  those  to  whom  the  rights,  the 
interests,  and  the  destinies  of  the  Southern  people,  are,  in  an  especial  manner, 
committed,  not  to  perceive  and  give  warning  of  the  inevitable  doom  that  awaits 
them  if  that  protecting  policy  which  impoverishes  and  destroys  one  branch  of  indus- 
try to  enrich  and  sustain  another  be  not  utterly  and  absolutely  abandoned.  This  • 
Congress  .should  adopt  no  halfway  measures, no  temporary  expedients,  but  "rcfonn 
it  altogether. ' ' 

The  .sectional  feeling  was  now  growing  day  by  day  and  liad  already 
asstuned  mo.st  dangerous  proportions.  The  administration,  however, 
was  well  supported.     Mr.  Adams,  who  had  been  defeated  by  Jackson  in 


LOW  TARIFFS,    1S33  TO  1S60. 


1828,  was  now  at  the  head  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  and 
made  a  report  completely  answering  the  free  traders.  While  Mr. 
McDuffie,  who  had  supported  Jackson,  was  now  his  bitterest  enemy  and 
lost  no  opportunity  to  assail  the  administration,  which,  however,  was 
sustained.  The  pending  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  132  yeas  to  60 
nays  in  the  House,  and  32  to  16.  in  the  Senate.  This  was  a  thoroughly 
protective  tariff  and  was  intended  as  such,  though  a  few  concessions 
were  made  to  appease  the  now  rabid  free  traders  of  the  South.  The  year 
1S32  was  a  memorable  one  indeed.  The  debate  on  the  tariff  had  been 
acrimonious  and  productive  of  bitter  hatred.  The  campaign  followed 
in  which  Jackson  and  Clay  were  the  opposing  candidates  for  the  presi- 
dency. Martin  Van  Buren  became  the  candidate  for  vice-president  with 
Jackson,  Calhoun  having  joined  the  free  traders.  The  electoral  votes  of 
the  cotton  States,  except  those  of  South  Carolina,  were  given  to  Jackson 
and  \'an  Buren.  The  storm  now  burst  in  all  its  fury.  As  soon  as  the 
election  of  Jackson  was  announced,  the  free  traders  of  South  Carolina  met 
in  convention  on  the  nineteeth  of  November,  1832, and  declared  that  "the 
tariff  acts  of  1828  and  1832  were  unconstitutional,  null  and  void  and  not 
binding  on  the  State,  its  officers  or  its  citizens,"  and  that  it  should  be 
unlawful  for  any  officer  of  the  State  or  the  United  States  to  collect  the 
duties  within  the  limits  of  South  Carolina.  They  went  still  further  and 
declared  that  any  attempt  of  Congress  to  enforce  the  laws  would  be 
inconsistent  with  the  longer  continuance  of  South  Carolina  in  the  Union, 
and  further,  the  Legislature  declared  that  military  resistance  should  be 
made  if  necessary.  The  ev^ents  of  this  time  show  in  a  marked  degree  the 
influence  of  a  few  strong  leading  men.  The  active  free  traders  of  South 
Carolina  were  but  a  handful  compared  with  the  masses.  The  politicians 
managed  the  affairs  of  the  State.  They  were  a  band  of  free  trade  slave- 
holders and  men  of  wealth  and  influence,  who  to  further  their  own  ambi- 
tions sacrificed  the  interests  of  the  people,  beginning  in  nullification  and 
ending  in  secession.  It  was  indeed  a  trj'ing  situation  for  Jackson  and 
his  administration.  No  man  was  ever  endowed  with  more  patriotism, 
with  a  greater  love  for  his  country  than  Andrew  Jackson.  He  was 
reluctant  to  depart  one  iota  from  the  protective  policy  that  had  grown 
into  an  American  system  and  had  given  such  impetus  and  prosperity  to 
the  nation.  On  the  other  hand,  he  wished  to  avoid  disunion.  There 
seemed  one  outlet  of  escape,  viz.,  through  concession  and  compromise. 
In  the  interests  of  harmony  Jackson  practiced  the  utmost  patience  and  for- 
bearance. He  was  willing  to  grant  concessions,  to  advocate  compromise, 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  it  ill  becomes  any  writer  removed  by  two  gen- 
erations, to  criticise  the  motives  that  influenced  the  mind  of  Andrew 
Jackson  to  depart  from  its  supposed  settled  convictions.  And  yet 
in  the  light  of  later  events  it  is  certain  that  he  made  a  grievous 
error.     Firmness   gave   way  to   kindness.     A  determined  purpose    was 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


supplanted  by  a  desire  for  peace  at  any  cost.  The  free  traders  would  not 
accept  the  offers  of  concessions.  They  wanted  free  trade  and  nothing 
else.  That  sectional  hatred  was  at  the  bottom  of  this  demand,  cannot  be 
doubted.  In  fact,  it  was  not  only  manifest  but  outspoken.  The  cry  of 
"robber  baron"  had  not  then  been  invented  but  the  prosperous  Northern 
manufacturer  was  an  object  of  envious  enmity  and  must  be  crushed.  The 
concessions  already  made  only  whetted  their  appetite  for  more.  They 
were  not  satisfied  with  a  part,  they  must  have  the  whole.  And  they 
obtained  it.  What  produced  the  result  concerns  us  not  so  much  as  the 
result  itself.  The  administration  was  willing  from  the  first  to  reduce  the 
revenue  to  provide  against  an  increasing  .surplus.  The  least  the  free 
traders  would  accept  was  a  horizontal  tariff  of  about  15  or  20  per  cent. 
They  knew  that  would  serve  their  purpose  as  well  as  the  abolition  of  all 
duties.  A  law  was  framed  considerably  modifying  that  of  1832,  but  it 
was  not  satisfactory  to  the  nullifiers  and  an  open  rupture  was  threatened 
and  seemed  likely  to  take  place  at  once,  but  Henry  Clay  came  to  the  rescue, 
if  rescue  it  can  be  called,  and  introduced  and  defended  the  famous  com- 
promise law  of  1833. 

The  tariff  of  1832  was  taken  as  a  basis.  It  was  then  provided  that 
all  duties  exceeding  20  per  cent  were  to  be  reduced  by  10  per  cent  Janu- 
ary I,  1834,  by  another  10  per  cent  January  i,  1836,  another  10  per  cent 
January  i,  1838,  and  another  10  percent  January  i,  1840,  that  on  Jan- 
uary I,  1842,  one-half  of  the  duties  remaining  over  20  per  cent  were  to 
be  taken  off  and  the  remaining  excess  on  July  i  of  the  same  year.  So  that 
after  July  i,  1842,  there  would  be  a  uniform  duty  of  20  per  cent.  This 
act  was  finally'  accepted  and  the  free  traders  professed  to  be  satisfied. 
War  and  bloodshed  had  been  averted  for  the  time,  but  national  ruin  and 
disaster  were  to  come  instead,  while  war  itself  was  only  postponed. 

The  tariff  of  1832  practically  remained  in  force  till  the  close  of 
Jackson's  term,  though  the  effect  of  the  finst  reduction  of  the  act  of  1S33, 
was  more  or  less  severe.  It  should  be  stated  that  both  Jackson  and  Clay 
expected  that  if  any  disastrous  consequences  should  follow  the  reductions 
the  law  could  be  at  once  amended.  Their  chief  aim  was  to  pre.serve  the 
Union  and  pacify  the  nullifiers,  but  they  intended  to  maintain  the 
American  system  by  restoring  the  duties  after  a  few  years  had  passed.  The 
effect  of  the  new  act  was  first  felt  on  the  revenues.  In  1833  revenues 
from  customs  were  $29,032,529;  in  1834  only  $16,214,957,  a  falling  off 
of  nearly  $13,000,000  in  one  year.  The  revenues  from  public  lands,  how- 
ever, served  to  augment  the  customs  revenue  enough  to  meet  the  expen- 
ditures of  the  government,  and  as  the  effect  on  the  countn,-  at  large  was 
not  yet  ruinous,  Jack.son  left  office  with  a  national  debt  extinguished  and 
the  national  finances  in  good  condition.  But  soon  came  the  effect  of  the 
second  reduction,  and  with  the  third  reduction  came  disaster  and  ruin. 
The  country  has  probably  never  passed  through  such  a  disastrous  panic 


t 


LOW  TARIFFS,   1S3S  TO 


as  that  of  1837.  Mr.  Van  Buren  entered  upon  his  terra  of  office  March  4 
of  that  year,  and  was  at  once  obliged  to  convene  Congress  in  special 
session.  The  revenue  was  now  insufficient  to  meet  the  wants  of  the 
government.  Banks  were  suspending,  factories  were  shutting  down,  labor 
was  everywhere  idle  and  the  wages  of  the  few  employed  cut  down  to  one- 
half  and  less. 

Mr.  Van  Buren  was  blind  to  the  true  state  of  affairs  and  still  more 
so  to  their  causes.  The  jubilant  free  traders  were  maintaining  that  the 
tariff  law  of  1833  '^^'^s  irrevocable  and  were  hailing  the  breakdown  of 
Northern  manufacturing  interests  with  unconcealed  joy.  Southern  men 
now  began  to  talk  openly  of  secession.  McDuffie  had  been  elected  governor 
of  South  Carolina  and  at  once  fanned  the  growing  flame  of  discontent  by 
expressions  like  the  following: 

However  they  may  be  amalgamated  in  the  crucible  of  an  executive  proclama- 
tion or  of  speculative  theor\',  history  bears  testimony  that  the  States  are,  in  point  of 
fact,  distinct  and  separate  communities,  mutually  independent  of  each  other,  and 
each  possessing  the  inherent  and  underived  attribute  of  sovereignty.  Not  only  are 
they  separated  geographicall)-,  and  by  a  distinct  and  independent  political  organiza- 
tion, but  they  are  still  more  practically  separated  by  the  diversity  of  their  staple 
productions,  creating  a  direct  and  irreconcilable  conflict  of  interest  between  the 
exporting  and  the  manufacturing  States,  as  decided  as  ever  exi,sted  between  any 
two  independent  nations,  ancient  or  modern.  It  is,  for  example,  the  undoubted 
interest,  as  it  is  the  sacred  right  of  the  planting  States,  to  exchange  their  staples 
for  the  manufactures  of  Europe,  free  from,  every  obstruction  or  incumbrance. 

Here  is  a  repudiation  of  the  accepted  compromise,a  reopening  of  the 
question  of  nullification,  a  declaration  of  State  sovereignty  and  a  sugges- 
tion of  secession.  It  was  no  longer  confined  to  South  Carolina.  It  was 
spreading  throughout  all  the  cotton-growing  States.  The  seed  of  section- 
alism and  free  trade  had  begun  to  bear  fruit.  By  threat  and  bravado 
they  had  gained  one  victory,  they  were  now  preparing  to  attempt 
another.  The  sacrifice  of  1833  meant  as  a  peace  offering  was  simply 
an  added  torch  to  light  the  future  fires  of  secession  and  rebellion. 
Better  by  far  would  it  have  been  had  the  conflict  been  entered  into  at  once. 
Compared  with  the  events  of  1861-5  it  would  have  been  but  trifling. 
There  is  no  language  adequate  to  picture  the  extent  of  that  profitless 
sacrifice,  to  describe  the  effect  of  the  compromise  of  1833.  The  fol- 
lowing from  a  speech  delivered  before  the  Chicago  Philosophical  vSociety 
in  1882,  by  Van  Buren  Denslow,  is  an  apt  de.scription  of  the  prevailing 
conditions: 

The  act  was  as  complex  and  multitudinous  in  its  effects  as  it  was  simple 
and  child-like  in  its  provisions.  It  deranged  the  industrial  future  of  every  man, 
woman  and  child  in  the  United  States.  What  it  said  could  be  written  on  one's 
thumb  nail.  What  it  did,  no  human  hand  could  write.  Ruin  flew  to  every  fire- 
side on  the  fascinating  wings  of  cheapness;  famine  stalked  into  every  household, 
leering  under  the  drunkenness  of  inflation,  yet  griped  with  the  sharp  pangs  of 
hunger.      One   flood  of   imports   destroyed  our  manufactures ;  their  sales  on  credit 


TARIFF  QUESTIOK  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


ruined  our  merchants,  and  the  merchants  then  destroyed  our  banks;  and  yet,  while 
the  whole  people  were  remitted  to  farming  in  the  years  of  1838  to  1842,  we  were 
importers  of  food.  The  planter  pointed  to  the  starving  free  laborer  and  mocked  at 
him,  because  he  was  less  comfortable  than  the  slave. 


Coltoii,  in  his  life  of  Henry  Clay,  after  referring  to  the  period  follow- 
ing the  tariff  of  18 16,  .says: 

The  revulsion  of  1S37  provided  a  far  greater  havoc  than  was  experienced  in  the 
period  above  mentioned.  The  ruin  came  quick  and  fearful.  They  were  few  that 
could  save  themselves.  Property  of  everj-  description  was  parted  with  at  prices  that 
were  astounding,  and  as  for  currency  there  was  scarcely  any  at  all.  In  some  parts 
of  Pennsylvania  the  people  were  obliged  to  divide  bank  notes  into  halves,  quarters, 
eighths,  and  so  on,  and  agree  from  necessity  to  use  them  as  money. 

Bnt  it  is  unnecessary  to  pile  up  testimony  of  this  kind.  There  has 
been  no  period  in  our  history  like  it  and  none  approaching  it  save  that 
of  twenty  years  afterward  under  another  and  different  free  trade  tarifif. 
Cotton  now  became  king,  and  Martin  Van  Buren  bowed  low  to  the 
sovereign.  From  1830  to  1833  the  annual  production  was  about  i  ,000,000 
bales.  In  1838  it  had  reached  1,800,000  bales,  and  in  1840  it  was  nearly 
2,200,000  bales.  Our  exportations  increased  from  270,000,000  pounds  in 
1831  to  7i8,ooo,ooo_pounds  in  1839,  nearly  threefold.  This  in  itself  was 
most  gratifying,  but  cotton  was  made  lord  over  every  industry  in  the  land. 
It  was  forgotten  that  we  had  other  agricultural  products,  or  should  have, 
and  yet  with  the  resources  to  feed  the  world  we  were  actually  being  fed 
by  foreign  countries.  For  the  first  time  in  our  history  we  had  a  President 
hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  his  country.  The  most  charitable  thing 
that  can  be  said  of  Martin  Van  Buren  is  that  he  was  weak.  If  he  was 
not  a  free  trader  at  heart  he  was  thoroughly  under  the  influence  of  free 
traders.  When  speaking  of  our  agricultural  interests  he  had  in  mind 
only  one  product,  cotton.  His  weak,  almo.st  criminal  course,  was 
thoroughly  rebuked  in  1840,  when  he  received  only  sixtj-  out  of  the  two 
hundred  and  ninety-four  electoral  votes  cast,  the  sixty  of  course  includ- 
ing Sotith  Carolina.  It  was  a  mistake  to  suppose  as  Mr.  Van  Buren  pre- 
tended to  at  least,  that  the  tariff  of  1833  could  not  be  repealed  before  the 
horizontal  scale  of  20  per  cent  was  reached.  In  fact,  both  President 
Jackson  and  Mr.  Clay,  as  well  as  all  who  lielped  pass  the  bill  had  that  very 
thought  in  mind  that  it  could  be  changed  at  any  time  if  necessary-.  But 
no  change  was  made,  and  when  William  Henry  Harrison  was  elected  in 
1840,  he  found  a  country  with  only  a  total  of  $370,000,000  in  manufac- 
tured prodticts  of  which  over  $1 10,000,000  was  the  product  of  grist  mills, 
saw  mills  and  the  leather  industry.  We  had  made  but  little  if  any  advance 
in  the  decade.  We  had  less  sheep  and  less  wool  in  1840  than  in  1830. 
There  was  as  yet  little  attempt  at  any  form  of  iron  making.  Our  textiles 
advanced  but  litlk-.  Our  agriculture,  our  manufactures  and  all  industry, 
were   sacrificed   that  the  growers  of  cotton   might  have  free  trade    with 


LOW  TABIFFS.   1S33  TO  1S60. 

British  manufacturers.  Our  imports  of  goods  that  we  should  have  made 
ourselves  exceeded  $100,000,000  annually.  They  would  have  far  exceeded 
this  amount  had  we  been  able  to  buy  and  pay  for  them.  We  were 
exporting  about  $8,000,000  worth  of  manufactured  goods,  more  than 
one-quarter  of  which  was  cotton  goods.  Our  only  real  material  advance  in 
ten  years  was  the  growing  and  exportation  of  cotton  it.self. 

General  Harrison  became  the  President  of  a  country  with  credit 
impaired,  with  ruined  industries  and  an  impoverished  people.  Some 
means  of  relief  must  be  found  and  it  could  come  only  through  a  change 
in  the  tariff.  A  special  session  of  Congress  was  called,  but  Mr.  Harrison 
died  before  it  assembled.  Mr.  Tyler,  who  succeeded,  was  another 
Van  Buren.  He  too  had  the  opinion  that  the  act  of  1833  could  not  be 
changed  till  all  its  provisions  had  expired.  During  Van  Buren's  term 
the  expenditures  of  the  government  had  exceeded  the  income  by  over 
$30,000,000.  The  treasury  was  in  an  exhausted  condition.  The  com- 
promise tariff  had  not  only  failed  to  protect  our  industries,  but  was 
unsuccessful  as  a  revenue  measure.  In  1840  an  attempt  was  made  to  place 
a  loan  abroad  but  it  failed.  The  government  was  then  offered  a  paltry 
quarter  of  a  million  at  from  8  to  32  per  cent  interest,  and  yet  seven  j'ears 
before  the  treasury  had  an  annual  surplus.  The  condition  of  the  gov- 
ernment was  deplorable  indeed,  but  the  condition  of  the  business  houses 
and  individuals  was  far  worse  if  possible.  The  "American  Almanac  "  esti- 
mated the  loss  in  six  leading  lines  of  trade  at  $785,000,000;  34,000  mer- 
chants failed  with  net  liabilities  of  $440,000,000  and  50,000  more  settled 
at  a  loss  of  nearly  $300,000,000.  That  was  Democracy  and  free  trade. 
They  were  mated  and  wedded  in  1833.  They  have  never  been  divorced. 
Though  no  change  was  thought  of  by  Tyler  during  i84i,in  March,  1842, 
he  .sent  a  special  message  to  Congress,  wherein  he  said: 


The  diminution  in  the  revenue  arising  from  the  great  diminution  of  duties 
under  what  is  called  the  Compromise  Act,  necessarily  involves  the  treasury  in 
embarrassments,  which  have  been  for  some  years  palliated  by  the  temporary  expe- 
dient of  issuing  treasury  notes — an  expedient  which,  affording  no  permanent  relief, 
has  imposed  upon  Congress,  from  time  to  time,  the  necessity  of  replacing  the  old 
by  new  issues. 

The  condition  of  affairs  could  continue  no  longer.  Free  trade  was  a 
failure  and  worse  than  a  failure.  Tyler  issued  another  message  only  three 
weeks  after  the  one  referred  to,  urging  Congress  to  action  and  yet  when 
Congress  passed  a  tariff  bill  it  was  vetoed  by  the  President.  From  some 
source  he  had  picked  up  the  term  "incidental  protection,"  probably  from 
Jackson,  though  his  understanding  of  the  meaning  intended  to  be  con- 
veyed by  Jackson  was  .slight  indeed.  Again  a  tariff  bill  was  passed  and 
again  it  was  vetoed,  but  this  time  the  bill  was  passed  over  the  Presi- 
dent's veto  and  became  a  law.  It  provided  for  both  revenue  and  protec- 
tion and  was  a  positive  success.     Its  effect  was   instantaneous.     First 


TARIFF  QUESTION  m  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


came  confidence.  Then  the  fires  were  lit,  the  wheels  began  to  revolve 
and  the  industries  and  business  of  the  country  improved  daily.  Not  only 
that,  but  the  treasury  gained  relief  at  once.  The  customs  receipts  for 
the  3'ear  ending  June  30,  1843,  were  $25,234,750,  as  against  $14,487,216 
for  the  previous  year  under  the  compromise  tariff.  Under  the  free  trade 
tariff  there  had  been  a  steady  decrease  of  revenue.  Under  the  protective 
tariff  of  1842  there  was  a  steady  increase  of  revenue,  and  this  too  in  the 
face  of  a  most  decided  falling  off  in  certain  imports  as  can  be  seen  from 
the  following  values  of  imports  into  the  United  States  for  the  full  years 
1841  and  1842  and  for  nine  months  of  1843: 


♦ 


BuUii 


1S41  111,757,036  ;  |i  1,001,939  |i5.5ir,oo9  I  14,255,966  $6,846,807  ]  f4.988.633 
T842  9.578,515  I  8,375,725  9.448.372  '  3.572.0S1  :  3,659,184  I  4,807,016 
184V1      2.958,1661      2,252,,S95  I      1,136,268,         734.737;      1,484.9211    22,320,335 


In  1S44  Henry  Clay  and  James  K.  Polk  were  the  Presidential  candi- 
dates, and  the  tariff  question  became  a  leading  issue.  The  tariff  of  1842 
had  been  made  distinctly  protective.  Not  only  had  duties  been  raised 
but  ad  valorem  rates  had  been  changed  in  many  instances  to  .specific.  The 
committee  which  had  framed  the  bill  showed  that  the  balance  of  trade 
had  been  $200,000,000  against  us  during  seven  years.  "All  branches  of 
industry  are  paralyzed,"  said  the  report,  but  perhaps  the  most  interesting 
point  made  was  the  difference  between  our  tariff  and  the  tariffs  of  foreign 
countries.  On  our  products  valued  at  $91,000,000  in  Europe,  duties  were 
levied  to  the  amount  of  $1 13,000,000  while  on  products  which  we  imported 
to  the  amount  of  $73,000,000  our  duties  were  only  $17,000,000. 

It  can  readily  be  seen  that  the  protectionists  of  1844  had  something 
to  talk  about  that  was  based  on  actual  conditions.  Mr.  Clay  was  considered 
a  protectionist  though  his  connection  with  the  Compromise  Act  lost  him 
many  friends  who  thought  he  had  conceded  too  much.  But  he  had  now 
fully  realized  his  mistake  and  was  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  principles 
of  a  protective  tariff.     In  a  speech  made  during  the  canvass  he  said : 

Let  the  amount  which  is  requisite  for  an  economical  administration  of  the 
government,  when  we  are  not  engaged  in  a  war,  be  raised  exclusively  on  foreign 
imports;  and  in  adjusting  a  tariff  for  that  purpose,  let  such  discrimination  be  made 
as  will  foster  and  encourage  our  domestic  manufactures.  AU  parties  ought  to  be 
satisfied  with  a  tariff  for  revenue,  and  discrimination  for  protection. 

On  the  other  hand  Mr.  Polk  was  a  free  trader  at  heart  though  not  an 
outspoken  opponent  of  protection.     He  was  in  thorough  sympathy  with 

1  .Nine  mouths  only  can  be  given,  as  Congress  changed  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  from  September 


LOW  TARIFFS,  1S33  TO 


the  free  traders  of  the  South,  but  the  electoral  vote  of  Pennsylvania  was 
necessar}',  and  Mr.  Dallas,  a  professed  protectionist,  was  put  on  the  ticket 
with  Polk.  lu  the  North  was  heard  the  cry,  "Polk,  Dallas  and  the  Tariff 
of  '42."  In  the  South  it  was  changed  to  "Polk,  Dallas  and  free  trade." 
The  campaign  and  election  of  Polk  was  the  greatest  fraud,  the  most  stu- 
pendous imposition  ever  perpetrated  in  American  politics.  Finst  Polk 
entered  into  an  intrigue  with  the  vSoutherners,  satisfying  them  that  he 
would  carry  out  their  wishes.  In  Pennsylvania  and  other  parts  of  the 
North  he  posed  as  the  friend  of  protection.  vSuch  a  course  could  not  suc- 
ceed in  these  days  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  1844  was  not  an  age 
of  the  telegraph,  railroad  and  press,  as  they  exi.st  to-day.  It  took  weeks 
for  information  to  travel  long  distances,  and  the  fraud  was  not  discovered 
till  too  late.  That  deceit  was  intended  is  evident  from  the  celebrated 
Kane  letter  written  by  Polk  from  which  the  following  extract  is  taken : 

I  am  in  favor  of  a  tariff  for  revenue,  such  a  one  as  will  yield  a  sufficient  amount 
to  the  treasury  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  government,  economically  adminis- 
tered. In  adjusting  the  details  of  a  revenue  tariff,  I  have  heretofore  sanctioned  such 
moderate  duties  as  would  produce  the  amount  of  revenue  needed,  and  at  the  same 
time  afford  reasonable  incidental  protection  to  our  home  industrj*.  I  am  opposed 
to  a  tariff  for  protection  merely,  and  not  for  revenue.  Acting  upon  these  general 
principles,  it  is  well  known  that  I  gave  my  support  to  the  policy  of  General  Jack- 
son on  this  subject.  " 

In  my  judgment,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to  extend,  as  far  as  it  may  be 
practicable  to  do  so,  by  its  revenue  laws  and  all  other  means  within  its  power,  fair 
and  just  protection  to  all  the  great  interests  of  the  whole  Union,  embracing  agri- 
culture, manufactures  and  the  mechanic  arts,  commerce  and  navigation. 


And  yet  this  very  man  had  only  one  year  before  while  running  for 
the  office  of  Governor  of  Tennessee  expressed  himself  as  follows,  in  a 
circular  letter  distributed  throughout  the  State : 

I  have  steadily,  during  the  period  I  was  a  representative  in  Congres.s,  been 
opposed  to  a  protective  policy,  as  my  recorded  votes  and  published  speeches  prove. 
Since  I  retired  from  Congress  I  had  held  the  same  opinions.  In  the  present  can- 
vass for  Governor  I  have  avowed  my  opposition  to  the  Tariff  Act  of  the  late  Whig 
Congress,  as  being  highly  protective  in  its  character  and  not  designed  by  its  authors 
as  a  revenue  measure.  I  had  avowed  my  opinion  in  my  public  speeches,  that  the 
interests  of  the  country — and  especially  of  the  producing  and  exporting  States — 
required  its  repeal,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Compromise  Act  of  1833. 

The  two  extracts  given  show  the  man  fully.  But  a  Presidency  was 
at  stake,  and  to  be  honest  meant  defeat.  He  is  said  to  have  spent  forty 
days  in  penning  the  famous  Kane  letter,  and  no  doubt  weighed  well  every 
sentence.  It  was  a  mass  of  ambiguity,  skillful  evasion  and  meaningless 
assertions.  Not  satisfied  with  this,  however,  reports  were  circulated  in 
the  North  by  the  Democrats  to  the  effect  that  Clay  was  not  as  sound  a 
protectionist  as  he  should  be  and  if  elected  would  advocate  the  repeal  of 


TARIFF  qVESTWN  h\  THE  VNITKD  STATES. 


the  tariff  of  '42.  The  result  was  very  close,  Polk  having  a  popular  plu- 
rality of  only  38,185  votes  in  a  total  of  2,698,611.  If  a  portion  only  of 
the  votes  given  to  James  G.  Birney  had  been  given  to  Clay  the  electoral 
vote  of  New  York  would  have  been  counted  for  Clay  instead  of  Polk  and 
elected  the  former.  It  is  by  such  narrow  margins  that  the  fate  of  the 
nation  has  more  than  once  been  decided  . 

However,  Polk  and  Dallas  were  elected  and  we  paid  the  cost.  The 
perfidy  of  Polk  cannot  be  too  emphatically  .stated.  He  was  fully  aware 
of  the  intentions  of  those  Southern  leaders  should  they  come  into  power. 
He  knew  they  had  abandoned  no  part  of  their  free  trade  desires.  That 
Mr.  Polk  gained  his  seat  by  dishonest  methods  cannot  be  gainsaid.  -His 
own  historian  admits  as  much,  and  of  course  his  party  friends  and  leaders 
were  not  ignorant  of  the  deceit  that  was  being  perpetrated  upon  the 
people.  The  campaign  has  been  dwelt  upon  for  the  reason  that  it  was 
fraught  with  consequences  most  disastrous  to  the  nation. 

A  large  majority  of  the  people  in  1844  were  protectionists  and  yet 
the  free  traders  won.  The  attack  upon  our  protective  policy  under  which 
the  country  was  then  in  a  most  prosperous  condition  was  begun  at  once, 
and  with  new  vigor  by  the  free  traders.  Mr.  Polk  chose  as  his  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  the  distinguished  free  trader,  Robert  J.  Walker,  of  Mis- 
sissippi. His  Attorney-General  and  Po.stmaster-General  were  also 
Southerners  and  free  traders.  The  administration  became  as  it  was 
intended  it  should  become,  a  sectional  one.  It  was  cotton  against  the 
rest  of  the  country  combined. 

Robert  J.  Walker  was  a  most  able  man.  The  hour  of  complete 
triumph  for  free  trade  was  at  hand.  The  astute  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
skilled  in  diplomacy  and  political  warfare  knew  fully  the  ground  upon 
which  he  was  standing  and  the  necessary  steps  to  bring  about  the  desired 
end.  A  report  was  prepared  and  presented  which  was  as  ingenious  as  it 
was  disingenuous.  It  was  a  plea  for  agriculture  and  for  a  removal  of  all 
so-called  restrictions.  We  were  to  feed  the  world  with  our  food  and  clothe 
them  with  our  cotton.  He  made  the  idea  look  plausible  to  .some,  though 
the  theory-  was  thoroughly  exploded  as  it  had  been  time  and  time  again 
since  the  days  of  Washington.  But  England  again  came  on  the  scene, 
and  her  statesmen  found  for  the  first  time  powerful  allies  in  this  country. 
The  policy  of  the  free  traders  in  the  United  States  was  in  entire  accord 
with  that  of  the  free  traders  of  England.  They  were  to  repeal  their  corn 
laws  and  buy  our  food,  we  were  to  repeal  our  protective  law  and  buy  her 
manufactures.  It  was  a  glorious  vision,  a  millennium  of  universal  pros- 
perity, but  withal  the  thinnest  and  mo.st  transparent  bubble  that  ever 
floated  in  the  air.  Could  we  look  upon  the  statesmen  of  that  period  as 
men  in  error  instead  of  being  influenced  by  sectional  hatred  the  crime 
upon  future  generations  would  be  no  les,s,  but  in  the  light  of  later  history 
we  cannot  even  give  them  ;he  benefit  of  a  charitable  doubt.     Their  crime 


7.0  ir  TARIFFS,  hs'.lS  TO  1S60. 


was  too  great,  too  far  reaching  in  its  effects,  too  awful  in  its  consequences, 
to  be  condoned  in  the  year  1896  when  we  are  living  under  another  free 
trade  administration.  Onty  a  few  of  the  readers  of  these  pages  can 
remember  the  changes  of  1844  and  1846.  They  have  but  to  substitute 
1844  for  1892  and  1846  for  1894,  a°d  the  story  is  told.  In  the  midst  of 
prosperity  a  change  was  made  to  free  trade,  a  change  brought  about  by 
deceiving  the  people.  This  is  no  idle  assertion.  James  K.  Polk, 
in  1S44,  and  Grover  Cleveland,  in  1892,  were  elected  through  misrep- 
resentation and  deceit.  Both  were  friendly  to  and  received  the  undivided 
support  of  the  Southern  free  traders.  The  election  of  both  was  followed 
by  a  free  trade  law  and  free  trade  calamity. 

Before  going  on  to  the  Walker  tariff,  or  tariff  of  1846,  and  its 
consequences,  a  glance  at  the  benefits  of  a  brief  interval  of  protection  in 
the  midst  of  what  was  for  the  most  part  a  period  of  free  trade 
will  be  instructive.  The  year  1842  found  us  a  bankrupt  people.  A 
large  portion  of  the  iron  furnaces  were  closed,  and  the  product  was  but 
a  little  more  than  200,000  tons.  In  1846  and  1847  the  production  was 
estimated  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  800,000  tons,  having  quad- 
rupled in  four  years.  Till  1843  "ot  a  single  ton  of  railroad  iron  had  been 
made  in  this  country,  yet  in  1 845  under  protection  we  made  50,000  tons,  and 
in  1847,  100,000  tons.  The  consumption  of  coal  in  1841  was  less  than 
1,000,000  tons,  in  1847  it  was  over  3,000,000  tons  nineteen-twentieths  of 
which  was  domestic  mining.  In  1843  our  sheep  numbered  19,000,000: 
in  1847,  27,000,000.  Our  woolen  manufacturers  used  48,000,000  pounds 
of  domestic  wool  in  1842,  and  67,500,000  pounds  in  1847.  The  average 
number  of  bales  of  cotton  annually  used  by  our  manufacturers  from  1835 
to  1842  was  263,000.  In  1846-47  this  had  increased  to  428,000  bales.  The 
average  production  of  lead  from  1835  to  1841  was  298,000  pigs.  In  1846 
the  production  was  785,000  pigs.  The  shipping  built  in  1842-43  amounted 
to  91,000  tons.  In  1848  it  had  increased  to  316,000  tons.  From  1835-41 
the  average  number  of  steamers  annually  built  was  92.  In  1846  we 
built  225.  How  did  our  agriculture  fare  ?  In  1843  we  exported  4,519,000 
bushels  of  wheat  and  flour.  In  1835-36-37-38  we  had  even  imported  over 
5,000,000  bushels.  Yet  in  1847  we  exported  26,312,000  bushels.  With 
this  increased  exportation  came  an  enormous  increase  of  consumption  at 
home,  due  to  the  demands  of  employed  labor.  The  production  of  certain 
staples  can  be  seen  from  the  following,  the  figures  for  1840  being  from 
the  census  returns,  those  of  1847  being  patent  office  estimates: 

1840 — Wheat,  84,823,000;  barley,  4,161,000;  oats,  123,071,000;  rye,  18,645,000; 
buckwheat,  7,291,000;  Indian  corn,  377,531,000.  Total,  615,522,000.  1847 — Wheat, 
114,245.000;  barley,  5,649,000;  oats,  167,867,000;  rye,  29,222,000;  buckwheat, 
11,673,000;  Indian  corn,  539.35o,ooo.     Total,  868,006,000. 

Let  US  look  a  moment  at  the  sugar  crop  of  Louisiana.  In  1841  the 
utunber    of    pounds    produced    was    77,000,000;    in    1848,    240,000,000. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


These  figures  showing  our  great  advance  under  the  tariff  of  1842  are 
taken  from  Henry  C.  Carey's  "Harmony  of  Interests,"  p.  23,  and  are  the 
most  reliable  that  can  be  obtained  for  that  period.  Says  Carey  writing  of 
this  period: 

The  power  of  producing  food  thus  kept  pace  with  the  power  to  apply  labor  and 
capital  to  the  conversion  of  food  and  other  raw  materials  into  iron,  cloth,  and  other 
commodities  requisite  for  the  use  of  man;  and  thus  both  kept  pace  with  the  tendency 
to  the  concentration  of  population.  With  every  increase  in  the  power  of  production, 
consumption  grew,  and  the  laborer  received  larger  returns  for  his  labor. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  folly  of  free  trade  and  the  benefits  of  pro- 
tection in  connection  with  this  period  which  we  are  now  examining,  the 
following  is  given  from  Carey's  "  Harmony  of  Interests:  "  ' 

In  1839  we  imported  forty-three  iiiillions  of  yards  of  cotton  cloths  of  various 
kinds,  the  consumers  of  which  were  customers  to  the  planter  to  the  extent  of  eleven 
millions  of  pounds  of  cotton,  or  less  than  28,000  bales,  being  as  much  as  would  be 
worked  up  by  twenty-eight  mills  of  moderate  size,  or  fourteen  of  larger  size.  To 
produce  those  mills  in  any  single  cotton-growing  State  would  require  no  effort 
whatsoever,  and  when  produced  it  would  be  found  that  they  would  be  all  profit,  for 
it  would  be  attended  with  not  the  slightest  diminution  in  the  amount  of  agricul- 
tural production.  The  laborers  are  there,  and  a  large  portion  of  their  time  is  abso- 
lutely waste.  The  horses  and  wagons  are  there,  to  a  great  extent  unemployed.  The 
timber  is  there,  encumbering  the  best  lands  of  the  plantation.  The  men  and  horses 
must  be  fed,  and  the  wagons  must  be  kept  in  order.  Make  a  market  for  this  waste 
labor,  and  the  laborers  will  consume  more  food,  but  the  chief  increase  of  expendi- 
tures will  be  in  clothing,  thus  making  a  market  for  cotton — in  houses,  making  a 
market  for  stone  and  lumber — in  furniture,  for  which  lumber  will  be  required — in 
books  and  newspapers,  making  a  market  for  rags — and  the  cloth-makers,  and  car- 
penters, and  masons,  and  cabinet-makers,  and  paper-makers,  and  printers,  will 
want  cloth,  and  shoes,  and  houses,  making  a  further  market  for  cotton  and  leather, 
and  lumber  and  stone.  Exchanging  thus  on  the  spot,  each  and  every  man  would  be 
a  producer,  whereas  when  exchanges  are  made  at  great  distances,  the  transporters 
and  exchangers  are  more  numerous  than  the  producers,  and  as  consumption  must  go  to 
the  extent  of  production  and  can  go  no  further,  we  ma}-  now  see  why  it  is  that  con- 
sumption tends  to  increase  so  rapidly  wdien  men  work  in  combination  with  each  other. 

In  four  years  we  erected  mills  that  worked  up  300,000  bales  of  cotton,  or  eleven 
times  as  much  as  was  contained  in  all  the  cloth  imported  in  1839.  To  have  created 
treble  that  number  would  have  required  no  effort,  nor  would  it  have  been  attended 
with  any  loss  of  agricultural  products,  for  the  labor  was  being  wasted  in  everi' 
county  of  the  South  and  West;  and  to  carry  them  on  would  now  be  attended  with 
no  diminution  in  the  jiroduct  of  food  or  cotton,  for  treble  the  labor  required  for  a 
factory  is  now  being  wasted  in  almost  every  county  of  the  Union,  and  in  everyone 
south  of  New  England.  To  the  labor-power  of  men  and  horses,  and  women  and 
children,  now  absolutely  unemployed,  let  us  add  the  quantity  that  is  wasted  on  the 
road,  and  to  that  let  us  add  the  manure  now  wasted  on  the  road,  and  then  we  may 
form  an  estimate,  but  even  then  a  very  in.sufficient  one,  of  the  increased  product  that 
would  have  resulted  from  the  creation  of  those  mills.  Let  us  then  reflect  that  all 
these  people  are  now  fed,  and  that  their  surplus  earnings  would  be  applicable  to 
the  purchase  of  other  things  than  food,  and  we  may  then  see  what  would  be  the 
extent  of  the  market  thus  made  on  the  land  for  the  products  of  the  laud. 
'  I'agc  45. 


LOW  TARIFFS,    IS.ll  TO  1S60. 

Meagre  as  are  the  statistics  relating  to  the  years  under  the  tariff  of 
1842,  enough  has  been  given  to  show  a  wonderful  change  for  the  better 
as  compared  with  the  disastrous  period  just  preceding  under  the  com- 
promise tariff  of  1833.  The  result  as  affecting  the  finances  of  the  gov- 
ernment will  be  given  in  comparison  with  the  effect  of  the  tariff  for  the 
four  years  following  1846.  To  give  an  account  of  the  birth  of  the  Walker 
tariff  is  but  to  add  another  chapter  to  the  fraud  of  1844.  The  Southern 
free  traders  were  now  at  the  helm  and  though  their  acts  were  contested  at 
every  step  they  carried  the  day.      Mr.  Polk  in  his  first  message  said: 

The  attention  of  Congress  is  invited  to  the  importance  of  making  suitable 
modifications  and  reductions  of  the  rate  of  duty  imposed  by  our  present  tariff 
laws.  The  object  of  imposing  duties  on  imports  should  be  to  raise  revenue  to  pay 
the  necessary  expenses  of  government.  Congress  may,  undoubtedly,  discrimi- 
nate in  arranging  the  rates  of  duty  on  different  articles;  but  the  discrimination 
should  be  within  the  revenue  .standard,  and  be  made  with  a  view  to  raise  money 
for  the  support  of  the  government. 

Here  was  a  surrender  at  the  outset  to  the  free  traders  and  a  repudi- 
ation of  the  Kane  letter.  He  was  ably  seconded  by  his  secretary  of  the 
treasury  and  the  tariff  of  1846  became  a  law.  Only  one  incident  con- 
nected with  its  passage  need  be  noted.  It  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of 
114  to  95.  The  vote  in  the  Senate  was  a  tie.  Mr.  Dallas,  the  "protec- 
tionist" from  Pennsylvania,  who  had  been  elected  as  such,  whohadhimself 
endorsed  the  cry  of  "Polk,  Dallas  and  the  Tariff  of  '42"  in  the  campaign, 
gave  the  deciding  vote  that  made  this  iniquitous  bill  a  law.  Thus  was 
con.summated  the  fraud  of  that  campaign  and  election.  The  passage  of 
the  tariff  bill  had  been  fought  at  every  step.  Perhaps  the  greatest  speech 
made  was  that  of  Daniel  Webster  during  the  three  days  July  25,  27  and 
28.  As  the  speech  abounds  so  in  economic  truths  and  as  free  traders 
delight  in  quoting  from  the  earh'  speeches  of  the  great  Massachusetts 
statesman,  a  considerable  extract  from  the  speech  is  here  given: 

But,  sir,  before  I  proceed  further,  I  will  take  notice  of  what  appears  to  be 
some  attempt,  latterly!  by  the  republication  of  opinions  and  expressions,  arguments 
and  speeches  of  mine,  at  an  earlier  and  a  later  period  of  my  life,  to  place  me  in  a 
position  of  inconsistencies  on  this  subject  of  the  protective  policy  of  the  country. 
Mr.  President,  if  it  be  an  inconsistency  to  hold  an  opinion  upon  a  subject  of  pub- 
lic policy  to-day  in  one  state  of  circumstances  and  to  hold  a  different  opinion  upon 
the  same  subject  of  public  policy  to-morrow,  in  a  different  state  of  circumstances,  if 
that  be  an  inconsistency  I  admit  its  applicability  to  myself.  You  indulge  in  the 
luxury  of  taxing  the  poor  man  and  the  laborer!  That  is  the  whole  tendency,  the 
whole  character,  the  whole  effect  of  the  bill.  One  may  see  everywhere  in  it 
the  desire  to  revel  in  the  delight  of  taking  away  men's  employment.  It  is  not 
a  bill  for  the  people  or  the  masses.  It  is  not  a  bill  to  add  to  the  comfort  of  tho.se 
in  middle  life,  or  of  the  poor.  It  is  not  a  bill  for  employment.  It  is  a  bill  for 
the  relief  of  the  highest  and  most  luxurious  classes  of  the  country,  and  a  bill 
imposing  onerous  duties  on  the  great  industrious  masses,  and  for  taking  away 
the  means  of  living  from  labor  everywhere  throughout  the  land.      The  interest  of 


The  pas- 
sage of  the 
1 1  alter 
tariff. 


TAUIFt   QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


every  laboring  community  requires  diversity  of  occupations,  pursuits,  and  objects 
of  industr}-.  The  more  that  diversity  is  multiplied  or  extended  the  better.  To 
diversify  employment  is  to  increase  employment  and  to  enhance  wages.  And,  sir, 
take  this  great  truth ;  place  it  on  the  title  page  of  every  book  of  political  economj' 
intended  for  the  use  of  the  government;  put  it  in  ever}'  farmer's  almanac;  let  it  be 
the  heading  of  the  column  in  every  mechanic's  magazine;  proclaim  it  everywhere, 
and  make  it  a  proverb,  that  where  there  is  work  for  the-  hands  of  men  there  will  be 
work  for  the  teeth.  Where  there  is  employment  there  will  be  bread.  It  is  a  great 
blessing  to  the  poor  to  have  cheap  food,  but  greater  than  that,  prior  to  that,  and  of 
still  greater  value,  is  the  blessing  of  being  able  to  buy  food  by  honest  and  respectable 
employment.  Employment  feeds  and  clothes  and  instructs.  Employment  gives 
health,  sobriety  and  morals.  Constant  employment  and  well-paid  labor  produce  in  a 
country  like  ours  general  prosperity,  content  and  cheerfulness.  Thus  happy  have 
we  seen  the  country.  Thus  happy  may  we  long  continue  to  see  it.  I  hope  I  know 
more  of  the  Constitution  of  my  country  than  I  did  when  I  was  twenty  years  old. 
I  hope  I  have  contemplated  its  great  objects  more  broadl)-.  I  hope  I  have  read 
with  deeper  interest  the  sentiments  of  the  great  men  who  framed  it.  I  hope  I  have 
studied  with  more  care  the  condition  of  the  country  when  the  convention  assembled 
to  form  it.  .  .  .  And  now,  sir,  allow  me  to  say  that  I  am  quite  indifferent, 
or  rather  thankful,  to  those  conductors  of  the  public  press  who  think  they  cannot 
do  better  than  now  and  then  spread  my  poor  opinions  before  the  public. 

But  the  bill  became  a  law  and  protection  was  abandoned.  The  new 
law  went  into  operation  December  i,  1846,  and  the  "golden  era"  of  free 
trade  began.  In  some  senses  it  was  at  first  a  golden  era,  but  the  gold 
came  from  California,  not  from  Congress,  and  it  all  went  to  England  as 
fast  as  we  could  mine  it.  We  saw  it,  even  felt  of  some  of  it,  but  we  did 
not  use  it  except  to  pay  our  debts  to  foreign  countries.  But  even  all  the 
vast  amount  of  gold  dug  out  of  the  mines  of  California  in  -the  years  from 
1846  to  i860  was  not  sufficient  for  this  purpose.  In  examining  this, 
period  of  free  trade  it  will  be  well  to  divide  it  into  three  or  four  parts. 
First  taking  the  four  years  1847-48-49-50  and  comparing  these  years  with 
the  four  years  under  the  tariff  of  1842,  a  most  significant  result  is  seen. 
The  imports  and  customs  revenue  during  these  two  periods  were  as  fol- 
lows: 

Dutiable  Per 

Imports.  Duties-  cent-         Receipts.         Expeuditures. 

Four  years  of  tariff  of '42,  ^309,178,151  197,109,411  33  ^97, 109, 411  180,220,444 
First  four  years  of  Walker 

larifl", 517.963.037  ■?3.92o.4ii     ^AM     123,920,411    176,128,155 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  excess  of  receipts  over  expenditures  in 
the  protection  period  was  $16,888,967,  while  during  the  first  four  years 
of  free  trade  the  deficit  was  $52, 108,144. 

So  much  for  the  revenue.     How  did  the  national  debt   fare?     The 
following  table  will  show: 

1S43 132,742,922 

1S46 15,550,202 

1847 38,826,534 

1850,     63,452,773 


LOW  TARIFFS,    ISJS  TO  1S60. 


During  the  four  years  of  protection  it  was  reduced  bj-  $17,192,720. 
The  first  year  of  free  trade  increased  it  not  only  by  this  amount  but  by 
$6,083,612  more  and  in  the  four  years  it  had  increased  $47,902,571. 
One  year  of  free  trade  more  than  wiped  out  the  reduction  of  four  years 
of  protection.  How  did  cotton  fare?  In  1845  the  last  full  year  of  pro- 
tection the  exportation  was  2,072,000  bales.  In  1847  tbe  first  year  of  free 
trade  the  exportation  had  fallen  to  1,241,000  bales.  The  price  fell  from 
$35  to  $27.  The  loss  in  exportation  was  831,000  bales  or  in  value  to  the 
amount  of  $29,000,000  at  the  price  in  1845,  or  $22,000,000  at  the  price 
in  1847.  We  had  surrendered  everything  to  England  and  the  South. 
For  a  single  year  it  seemed  as  if  we  were  to  be  rewarded.  Whether  the 
crops  of  Europe  failed  in  1847  to  vindicate  the  tariff  of  1846  or  whether 
the  tariff  of  1846  had  the  effect  of  bringing  about  failure  in  foreign  crops, 
is  left  for  the  free  trade  advocates  of  the  "golden  era"  to  determine.  The 
crops  di'd  fail,  however,  and  for  a  single  year  the  balance  of  foreign  trade 
was  in  our  favor.  Such  a  result  did  not  occur  again  for  a  decade  and 
then  but  for  a  single  year.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  the  free  traders 
in  1846  foresaw  the  failure  of  European  crops  in  1847.  They  should  not 
then  have  the  credit  for  the  balance  of  trade  for  that  year.  The  Mexican 
war  broke  out  in  1846,  by  which  we  acquired  California  and  New 
Mexico.  Did  the  free  traders  of  1S46  know  of  the  gold  hidden  in  the 
mines  of  California?  Did  the  tariff  of  1846  bring  that  gold  to  the 
surface?  If  not,  they  must  not  have  the  credit  for  the  benefits  derived. 
jThese  benefits  were  many.  The  increased  demand  for  transportation 
facilities  made  railroad  building  necessary  and  our  mileage  doubled  in 
the  six  years  following  the  discovery  of  gold  though  the  total  was  small 
compared  with  the  increase  afterward  under  protection.  This  will  be 
shown  further  on. 

It  would  take  too  many  pages  to  show  in  detail  all  the  faults  of  the 
tariff  of  1846,  but  there  is  one  iniquitous  feature  that  is  too  prominent 
to  be  overlooked.  The  act  of  1842  framed,  as  all  protectionist  measures 
are,  to  promote  the  growth  of  domestic  manufactures,  increased  the  duties 
on  finished  goods  and  placed  on  the  free  list  those  raw  materials  which 
were  required  to  be  purchased  in  foreign  countries  and  which  were 
used  in  manufacturing,  such  as  dye  woods,  dye  stuffs,  certain  chemical 
products,  etc.  The  most  infamous  feature  of  the  act  of  1846,  and  the  one 
which  exposes  the  enmity  which  existed  in  the  minds  of  its  framers 
against  the  industries  of  the  country,  is  the  manner  in  which  it  treated 
raw  materials.  Not  satisfied  with  exposing  this  branch  of  production  to 
ruinous  competition  under  low  duties,  the  struggle  for  existence  was 
made  more  difficult  bj'  placing  duties  on  those  raw  materials  which  could 
not  be  produced  at  home.  This  feature  of  the  bill  is  contrary  to  the 
principles  advocated  by  both  protectionists  and  free  traders.  That  it  was 
an    effort  to  strike  down  the  manufacturing  interests   of    the    North  is 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


absolutely   certain.      No  more  definite  means  could  have  been  adopted  to 
accomplish  this  end. 

In  the  same  year  the  British  tariff  had  been  changed  in  a  large 
degree,  and  as  compared  with  the  changes  made  by  our  free  traders  the 
comparison  is  most  significant.  The  following  table  prepared  by  Mr. 
Edwin  Williams  in  an  article  in  Fisher's  National  Magazine  for  Septem- 
ber, 1846,  will  illustrate  the  point  to  be  explained: 


Tariff  of  1842. 

Tariff  of  1846.           British 

Tariff. 

5  per  cent. 
''   frei: 

7  per  cent, 
free. 

2)i  per  cent. 
5 

30  per  cent,                fr 

5     ;; 

30 
20 

15 

5 
20 

5 

20 
10 

5 
10 

5 

10         " 
10 
10        " 

5 
10        " 

5        "     . 

5 

5 
10 
10 

5 

5 

5 
15 

5 

5         " 

ee. 

Raw  hides  and  skins, 

Wood,  mahogany,  etc. 

Other  kinds,  except  timber 

Antimony,  crude 

Barilla 

Bark  of  the  cork  tree, 

Berries  used  for  dyeing 

Brimstone  or  sulphur, 

Ebony,     .    .        

Crude  saltpetre 

Burr  stones,  unwrought 

Precious  stones,      .        

Pearl   mother  of,  .    .    .               ... 

Ivory,  unmanufactured, 

Madder, 

Palm  leaf,  unmanufactured,   ... 
Rattan  and  reeds,  unmanufactured, 

• 

• 

Tin,  in  sheets  or  plates 

Tin,  in  pigs,  bars,  or  blocks,  .... 

"We  might  extend  this  list,"  says  Mr.  Williams,  "but  enough  is  given  to  show 
the  comparative  legislation  of  the  American  and  British  governments,  with  regard 
to  raw  materials  and  other  articles  essential  for  the  use  of  manufactures  and  in  the 
arts.  While  the  British  parliament  are  removing  all  duties  on  articles  required 
for  the  use  of  their  manufactures,  our  American  Congress  have  increased 
the  burdens  of  our  manufacturers,  by ,  additional  duties  on  the  raw  materials 
imported  for  their  use ;  at  the  same  time  they  have  reduced  the  protective  duties. 
Was  there  ever  a  parallel  case  of  injustice  in  the  history  of  legislation  in  any 
country? 

"The  plain  truth  is,  and  it  is  folly  to  attempt  to  conceal  it,  that  the  worst  evil, 
the  skill,  capital,  and  labor  of  this  country  have  to  contend  with,  is  its  own  present 
government,  who,  not  content  with  demanding  specie  in  all  payments  made  to 
thorn  by  the  pi'ople,  have,  by  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  legislated  against 
America,   and  in  favor  of  England." 


LOW  TARIFFS.   1S33  TO  1860. 


This  was  free  trade  legislation  in  1846.  Free  trade  legislation  was 
somewhat  different  in  1894.  Yet  each  and  everj'  act  has  been  accom- 
panied by  the  destruction  of  American  manufactures  and  the  degradation 
of  the  American  laborer.     In  1848  the  Democratic  platform  declared: 

That  the  fruits  of  the  great  political  triumph  of  1844,  which  elected  James  K. 
Polk  and  George  M.  Dallas,  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  have 
fulfilled  the  hopes  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Union  ...  in  the  noble  impulse 
given  to  the  cause  of  free  trade  by  the  repeal  of  the  tariff  of  1S42,  and  the  creation 
of  the  more  equal,  honest,  and  productive  tariff  of  1846;  and  that,  in  our  opinion, 
it  would  be  a  fatal  error  to  weaken  the  bands  of  a  political  organization  by  which 
these  reforms  have  been  achieved. 

Zachary  Taylor,  however,  defeated  Lewis  Cass,  the  Democratic  can- 
didate. Taylor  lived  but  a  short  time  and  was  succeeded  by  Millard 
Fillmore.      Here  is  what  President  Tavlor  said   in   his  first  annual  mes- 


I  recommend  a  revision  of  the  existing  tariff  and  its  adjustment  on  a  basis 
which  may  augment  the  revenue.  I  do  not  doubt  the  right  or  duty  of  Congress  to 
encourage  domestic  industry.  I  look  to  the  wisdom  and  patriotism  of  Congress  for 
the  adoption  of  a  sj-stem  which  may  place  home  labor,  at  last,  on  a  sure  and  per- 
manent footing,  and,  by  due  encouragement  of  manufactures,  give  new  and 
increased  stinmlus  to  agriculture  and  promote  the  development  of  our  vast  resources 
and  the  extension  of  our 


President  Fillmore  expressed  himself  as  follows  iu  his  message  of 
1851: 

The  value  of  our  exports  of  breadstuffs  and  provisions,  which  it  was  supposed 
the  incentive  of  a  low  tariff  and  large  importations  from  abroad  would  have  greatly 
augmented,  has  fallen  from  $68,000,000  in  1847  to  |2i, 000,000  in  1851,  with'  almost 
a  certainty  of  a  still  further  reduction  in  1S52.  The  policy  which  dictated  a  low 
rate  of  duties  on  foreign  merchandise,  it  was  thought  by  those  who  established  it, 
would  tend  to  benefit  the  farming  population  of  this  country  by  increasing  the 
demand  and  raising  the  price  of  our  agricultural  products  in  foreign  markets.  The 
foregoing  facts,  however,  seem  to  show,  incontestably,  that  no  such  result  has  fol- 
lowed the  adoption  of  this  policy. 

And  now  followed  in  rapid  succession  events  which  had  great  influ- 
ence upon  our  home  and  foreign  trade.  The  discovery  of  gold  has  been 
mentioned.  Then  the  famine  in  Ireland,  creating  an  abnormal  demand 
for  our  flour,  grain,  potatoes  and  other  products:  variotis  upheavals  in 
Europe  culminating  in  the  Crimean  war,  continued  the  demand  for  our 
staples,  giving  us  a  temporary  prosperity.  It  will  hardly  be  contended, 
however,  by  the  most  arrogant  free  trader  that  the  tariff  of  1846,  brought 
about  either  war  or  famine  abroad,  any  more  than  it  did  the  short  crops, 
the  Mexican  war  or  the  discovery  of  gold.  Only  by  attributing  all  these 
results  to  the  Walker  tariff  can  we  place  any  part  of  the  temporary  pros- 
perity of  those  times  to  the  credit  of  the  free  trade  tariff  under  which 
they  happened  to  occur.     Even  with  all  these  extraordinary  happenings 


TARIFF  QVF.STION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES 


combining  to  give  us  most  unusual  advantages,  the  result  was  far  differ- 
ent from  that  seen  in  protection  periods  with  no  outside  causes  contribut- 
ing to  our  gain.  The  year  1854,  however,  brought  an  end  to  it  all, 
and  we  were  then  thrown  on  natural  resources  and  the  workings  of  free 
trade  were  seen  in  their  true  light.  During  the  first  jears  of  the  decade 
the  receipts  from  customs  duties  had  equaled  the  expenditures,  but  this 
state  of  affairs  ended  with  1854,  and  debt  and  ruin  came  fast.  From  this 
time  on  until  1861  the  condition  of  the  national  treasury,  of  business  in 
general  and  of  individuals  grew  worse  and  worse.  The  events  of  that 
time  have  been  pictured  time  and  time  again.  The  following  from  the 
New  York  Tribune  of  January  15,  1855,  written  by  Horace  Greeley 
himself,  has  been  quoted  in  many  reviews  of  this  period,  but  coming 
generations  should  read  it  over  and  over  again  and  know  just  what  free 
trade  means: 

Who  is  liungr}?  Go  and  see.  You  that  are  full  fed  and  know  not  what  it  is 
to  be  hungry — perhaps  never  saw  a  hungry  man — go  and  see.  Go  and  see  thou- 
sands, men  and  women,  boys  and  girls,  old  and  .young,  black  and  white,  of  all 
nations,  crowding  and  jostling  each  other,  almost  fighting  for  a  first  chance,  acting 
more  like  hungry  wolves  than  human  beings,  in  a  land  of  plenty,  waiting  till  food 
is  ready  for  distribution.  Such  a  scene  may  be  seen  every  day  between  eleven  aud 
two  o'clock  around  the  corner  of  Orange  and  Chatham  streets,  where  charitj'  gives 
a  dinner  to  the  poor,  and  soup  and  bread  to  others  to  carry  to  their  miserable  fam- 
ilies. On  Saturday  we  spent  an  hour  there  at  thehourof  high  tide.  Wehavenever 
seen  anything  like  it  before.  Upward  of  a  thousand  people  were  fed  with  a  plate 
of  soup,  a  piece  of  bread  and  a  piece  of  meat,  on  the  premises,  and  in  all  more  than 
sixteen  hundred.  On  the  same  day  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  thirty  portions 
of  soup  were  dealt  out  from  Stewart's  "soup  kitchen,"  corner  of  Reade  street  and 
Broadway.  At  the  rooms  on  Duane  street  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  on  the  same 
day,  they  gave  food  to  two  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty-six.  In  the  Sixth  ward 
alone  over  six  thousand  persons  were  fed  by  charity  on  Saturda3',  January  13.  And 
this  is  only  one  day  in  one  ward.  Meanwhile,  scenes  of  a  like  nature  are  being 
enacted  all  over  the  city. 

The  cry  of  hard  times  reaches  us  from  every  part  of  the  country.  The  making 
of  roads  is  stopped,  factories  are  closed  and  houses  and  ships  are  no  longer  being 
built.  Factor}'  hands,  road  makers,  carpenters,  bricklayers  and  laborers  are  idle, 
and  paralysis  is  rapidly  embracing  every  pursuit  in  the  country.  The  cause 
of  all  this  stoppage  of  circulation  is  to  be  found  in  the  steady  outflow  of 
gold  to  pay  foreign  laborers  for  the  cloth,  the  shoes,  the  iron  and  the  other  things 
that  could  be  produced  by  American  labor,  but  which  cannot  be  so  produced  under 
our  present  revenue  system.  The  convulsion  would  have  come  upon  us  sooner  but 
for  the  extraordinary  demand  in  Europe  for  bread.stuffs,  growing  out  of  huge  famines 
and  big  wars,  and  but  for  the  dazzling  and  magnificent  discovery  of  gold  mines  in 
California,  by  which  hard  money,  sufficient  to  buy  an  empire,  has  been  called  into 
existence  and  exported  to  Europe.  If  we  could  .stop  the  import  of  the  foreign  arti- 
cles, the  gold  would  cease  to  flow  out  to  pay  for  them,  and  money  would  then  again 
become  more  abundant,  labor  would  tlien  again  be  in  demand,  shoes,  clothing, 
and  other  commodities  would  then  again  be  in  demand,  and  men  would  then  cease 
to  starve  in  the  streets  of  our  towns  and  cities.  If  it  be  not  stopped  the  gold  must 
continue  to  go  abroad,  and  employment  nmst  become  from  day  to  day  more  scarce. 


LOW  TARIFFS,  1S33  TO  1860. 

until  where  there  are  now  many  thousands  we  shall  see  tens  of  thousands  of  men 
everywhere  crying:  "Give  me  work!  Only  give  me  work !  Make  your  own  terms 
— my  wife  and  children  have  nothing  to  eat!" 

Shortly  after  this  Mr.  Greeley  made  a  personal  tour  of  the  States 
to  investigate  for  himself  and  everywhere  he  found  the  condition 
of  the  people  the  same.  The  West  and  South  were  appealing  to  the 
North  for  bread.  The  country  was  held  in  the  vice-like  grip  of  free 
trade,  and  gold  was  daily  going  abroad  to  pay  for  what  we  were  buying 
and  had  bought.  Said  Hon.  William  D.  Kelley  in  Congress,  February 
1 6,  1887,  speaking  of  the  causes  that  led  to  such  a  condition  of  affairs: 

The  decade  that  followed  that  year  (1847)  was  a  memorable  one.  .  .  .  The 
potato  rot  decimated  Ireland,  affecting  the  other  British  islands,  and  spread  to  the 
continent  of  Europe,  and  we  exported  in  one  year  the  then  unprecedented  amount 
of  f  68, 000, 000  worth  of  grain.  ,  .  .  .  We  imported  and  consumed  immense  quan- 
tities of  foreign  goods,  and  as  the  quantity  of  these  increased,  the  demand  for  the 
labor  of  the  American  workman  dimini.shed.  We  imported  coal  for  use  in  the 
manufactories  and  the  propulsion  of  locomotives.  We  imported  rails  to  lay  over  our 
coal  fields  and  iron  beds;  wages  fell  to  rates  as  low  as  they  had  been  in  1S20  and 
1821,  or  in  1840  and  1841.  California  gold  had  fled  from  us  as  from  a  pestilence. 
We  had  nothing  to  show  for  our  unusual  exports  of  grain  and  provisions.  .  .  . 
The  resources  of  the  government  were  shrinking  monthly  and  its  credit  was  again 
destroyed;  and  in  little  less  than  ten  years  from  the  going  into  effect  of  the  revenue 
tariff  of  1846  the  entire  banking  system  of  the  country  collapsed.  .  .  .  The  peo- 
ple were  prostrated,  and  idle  and  discontented. 

And  yet  in  the  face  of  all  this  the  Democratic  platform  of  1856  con- 
tained the  following:  "That  there  are  questions  connected  with  the 
foreign  policy  of  this  country  which  are  inferior  to  no  domestic  question 
whatever.  The  time  has  come  for  the  people  of  the  United  States  to 
declare  themselves  in  favor  of  free  seas  and  progressive  free  trade 
throughout  the  world."  This  was  followed  by  the  tariff  law, of  1857, 
still  further  reducing  the  duties.  Franklin  Pierce  became  President  in 
1853,  and  on  the  last  day  of  his  term,  March  3,  1857,  he  signed  the  new 
tariff  law.  James  Guthrie,  of  Kentticky,  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  Jefferson  Davis,  Secretary  of  War,  both  free  traders,  and  both  having 
unlimited  power  and  influence  in  the  administration. 

At  this  time  the  slavery  question  had  become  the  one  absorbing  sub- 
ject of  national  importance.  Every  other  question  and  issue  was  sub- 
ordinate and  sank  into  insignificance.  Since  the  passage  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  in  1820,  which  prohibited  slaves  from  being  held  in  the  States 
and  Territories  north  of  the  Mason  and  Dixon  line,  the  controversy  had 
grown  with  increasing  interest.  While  public  sentiment  was  steadily 
growing  throughout  the  North  and  West  against  the  institution  of  slavery 
it  had  not  yet  become  so  crystallized  that  the  elements  entertaining 
different  views  upon  the  best  means  of  restricting  its  further  extension  or 
accomplishing  its  total  abolition,  had  not  been  moulded   into  one  party 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE   VNITEl)  STATES 


strong  enough  to  carry  the  country.  There  were  the  extreme  abolitionists 
who  believed  that  the  question  should  never  be  allowed  to  rest  so  long  as 
the  institution  remaiued.  There  were  those  of  more  moderate  views  who 
opposed  its  further  extension  and  believed  that  it  should  be  confined  in 
the  States  where  it  had  existed,  and  that  the  nation  should  wait  patiently 
until  the  Southern  people  themselves  became  more  enlightened  on  the 
subject.  The  fact  that  the  people  of  the  North,  who  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  were  opposed  to  the  institution,  were  divided  into  factions  and 
could  not  unite  on  a  common  platform,  left  the  pro-slavery  party  in  con- 
trol of  the  government.  A  sufficient  number  of  Democrats  in  the  North 
believing  in  the  institution  of  slavery  united  with  the  South  and  made 
it  possible  for  the  Democratic  party  to  control  the  executive  and  legisla- 
tive branches  of  the"  government.  Between  1850  and  i860  the  South 
dominated  the  country.  The  vigorous  agitation  against  slavery  which 
was  carried  on  bj'  the  abolitionists  intensified  sectional  hatred.  Hence 
the  Southern  leaders  became  more  aggressive,  bold  and  defiant.  They 
repealed  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1850,  so  that  slavery  could  be 
carried  into  Kan.sas,  Nebraska  and  the  great  Northwest,  and  in  fact, 
into  any  State  which  might  adopt  it.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  also 
passed  in  1850,  which  directed  the  return  of  slaves  who  had  escaped  from 
their  masters  and  authorized  and  directed  United  States  Commissioners 
in  the  North  to  compel  their  surrender  without  trial  by  jury,  and  com- 
manded citizens  of  the  North  to  aid  in  making  arrests  and  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law.  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  free  traders  that  the  acts 
of  1846  and  1857  were  acceptable  and  satisfactor\-  to  the  North  and  sup- 
ported and  concurred  in  by  Northern  representatives  in  Congress  from 
manufacturing  districts.  The  fact  that  members  of  the  Democratic  part}' 
of  the  North  voted  for  these  measures,  when  the  political  conditions  of 
the  times  are  taken  into  consideration,  affords  no  evidence  of  benefits  or 
satisfactory  business  results  arising  from  this  legi.slation.  The  South 
shaped  and  directed  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  made  its  platforms 
and  dictated  the  legislation  of  the  country,  not  only  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion, but  upon  every  other  question.  They  al.so  controlled  the  patronage, 
dealt  out  all  offices,  and  members  from  the  North  were  compelled  to  bow 
to  Southern  dictation  and  abide  by  party  caucu-ses  or  become  ostracized, 
stripped  of  political  influence  and  humiliated.  The  .social  as  well  as  the 
political  influence  of  the  Capitol  was  exacting  and  unrelenting  in  its 
enforcement  of  every  principle  championed  bj'  the  South. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  not  difficult  to  di.scover  the  motives 
which  led  to  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1857.  There  was  no  excu.se 
for  it,  on  other  than  sectional  grounds.  The  tariff  of  1846  had 
failed  even  as  a  revenue  measure,  and  increase  of  revenue  could  not  be 
hoped  for  under  further  reduction,  which  included  even  the  duties  on 
luxuries.     To  recite  the  effects  of  this  law  is  Init  to  continue  the  account 


LOW  TARIFFS,   1S3S  TO  ISGO. 

of  the  embarrassment  of  the  national  government,  the  ruin  of  trade  and 
business,  and  the  misery  of  the  people.  Each  year  the  national  debt 
increased  and  the  balance  of  trade  against  us  for  the  years  1857  to  1861, 
inclusive,  amounted  to  $174,160,123.  The  revenues  from  customs  were 
less  in  1858,  1859,  i860  and  1861  than  in  1857,  and  the  expenditures  for 
the  four  years  exceeded  the  receipts  of  the  government  by  $77,234, 1 16. 
As  a  revenue  measure  then,  it  was  a  far  worse  failure  than  the  tariff  of 
1846.  In  increasing  the  national  debt  it  was  a  perfect  success,  our  debt 
going  from  $45,000,000  in  1857,  to  $90,000,000  in  1861,  or  just  double, 
and  as  a  bankrupt  treasury  was  the  apparent  aim  of  the  free  traders  it 
must  be  admitted  that  they  fully  realized  their  hopes. 

In  the  fall  of  i860  President  Buchanan  and  his  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  offered  authorized  bonds  for  sale,  but  there  being  little  response 
Congress  authorized  the  issue  of  Treasury  notes,  one-twentieth  only  of 
which  were  bid  for  at  from  12  to  30  per  cent  discount.  The  credit  of  the 
government  was  low  indeed.  It  was  far  below  that  of  the  States  and  of 
most  individuals. 

Turning  now  from  the  condition  of  national  finances,  let  us  examine 
a  moment  the  condition  of  business  men  and  the  masses.   Peter  Cooper  said : 


British  iron  and  cloth  came  in  and  gold  went  out,  and  with  each 
day  the  dependence  of  our  farmers  on  foreign  markets  became  more  complete. 
With  1857  came  the  culmination  of  the  system,  merchants  and  manufacturers  being 
ruined,  banks  being  compelled  to  suspend  payment,  and  the  treasury  being  reduced 
to  a  condition  of  bankruptcy  nearly  approaching  that  which  had  existed  at  the 
close  of  the  free  trade  period  of  181 7  and  1839. 

The  distress  was  iniiversal  and  deplorable  in  the  extreme.  We 
can  hardly  conceive  in  these  days  of  the  misery  of  those  times.  In  the 
midst  of  this  universal  distress,  when  our  industries  were  prostrate  and 
idle,  when  the  people  were  appealing  for  work,  when  the  results  of  the 
act  of  1846  could  not  be  mistaken,  the  Democratic  party  carried  its 
ruinous  policy  still  further  and  enacted  the  law  of  1857.  The  effect  of 
this  was  to  increase  imports,  intensify  the  suffering,  and  make  more 
terrible  the  calamities  which  had  already  befallen  the  country.  President 
Buchanan  described  the  situation  in  his  message  of  December  14,  i860, 
in  the  following  language:  "Panic  and  distress  of  a  fearful  character 
prevails  throughout  the  land.  Our  laboring  population  is  without 
employment  and  consequently  deprived  of  the  means  of  earning  their 
bread.  Indeed  all  hope  seems  to  have  deserted  the  minds  of  men." 
But  quotations  are  not  proof.  To  learn  the  real  cause  of  the  hope- 
less condition  of  the  people  we  have  but  to  examine  the  following  table 
showing  the  increase  in  .some  of  our  imports  from  1846  to  i860.  England 
was  manufacturing  our  goods  for  which  we  were  sending  her  our  gold, 
while  our  own  workmen  were  idle  and  their  families  starving : 


o/the  ' 
people. 


TARIFF  QVFSTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Imports   of  Twenty  Principal  Manufactures  in   1846  and 
Cent  Increase. 


Brass, 

Clocks  and  time  pieces, 

Clothing,      

Cotton  goods,      .... 

Flax, 

Glass,        

Gunny  bags  (1847),  .    . 
Iron,  .... 

Laces  and  embroidery, 

I<eather 

Paper, 

Silk, 


Soda  ash  (1S47), 

Steel,     .    .    .  _ 

Tin,  copper  and  zinc,  .  .  .  . 
Earthenwares,  china,  etc.,  .    . 

Wood, 

Wool,  except  carpeting,  .  . 
Wool,  carpeting  of  all  kinds. 
Tobacco, 


145,860 

1  231,792 

59 

1,296,887 

2,990,505 

130 

847,742 

2,102.296 

148 

13.530.625 

32,559,024 

141 

5,098,505 

10,736,335 

III 

686,229 

2,174.493 

217 

105.173 

2,082,643 

1,880 

7.835.832 

18,802,227 

140 

982,166 

4.017.675 

309 

1,130,064 

■  5.III.748 

•  352 

134.374 

723.763 

439 

12,470,320 

33,065,820 

't^ 

240,307 

2,551,324 

962 

1,234,408 

2,724.353 

121 

228,129 

5,523.326 

2,321 

2,525.349 

4,,i07,Si2 

75 

554.98+ 

1,212,662 

119 

9,830,307 

35.394,422 

260 

253.543 

2,542.523 

904 

1,284,086 

4,714,284 

267 

To  show  from  whom  we  bought  most  of  the  manufactured  goods  of 

this  period  the  following  table  has  been  prepared : 

Total  Imports  of  Certain  Manufactured  .iVRTicLEs  from  1846  to  i860, 
Inclusive.     From  Great  Britain  and  All  Other  Countries. 

Total  Importation. 

140,532,277 
8,794,376 

335,783,475 

128,213,361 
22,368,177 

268,771,984 
15,048,443 
14,216,872 
47.649.796 
37,416,168 
3.659.479 
16,638  629 

378,280,822 
29.337.146 
59,705,478 

48,726,976 
329.992.754 
19.869.587 


Clocks,  chronometers,  watches,  etc 121,389,451 

Coal, 6,121,169 

Cotton, 274,078,484 

Flax, 122,375.579 

Glass, 3.282,115 

Iron  and  steel 234,19.8,167 

Indigo 5,651, 39J 


soda. 


Jewelry  and  plated 

Leather 

Laces,  embroideries,  etc.,  .  .  . 
Paints,  painters'  colors,  etc.,  . 
Soda  ash,  carbonate  of  soda  and 

Silk,      

Steel,  cast,  German  and  other 

Tin 

Wares,     earthen,   china,     porcelain     and 

stone,    .        .        .3S.726976 

Wool,  exclusive  of  carpeting, 209,709,9.80 

Wool,  carpeting  of  all  kinds, 19,611,541 


8,577,067 
16,620,152 
29,125,324 

2,730,327 
16,133.793 
52,380,193 
28,084,118 
50,416,090 


LUW  r MUFFS    1SS3  TO 


The  large  imports  of  manufactured  goods  from  Great  Britain  under 
the  low  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857  as  exhibited  by  the  foregoing  table  con- 
firm the  opinion  of  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  associates  of  the  inabilit)'  of 
American  manufacturers  to  resist  British  competition.  The  free  traders 
of  the  United  States  had  joined  hands  with  British  manufacturers  and  were 
carrying  out  the  verj'  scheme  which  brought  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League 
into  existence.  The  leaders  of  the  free  trade  movement  in  England  had 
precise  information  upon  the  situation  and  were  able  definitely  to  predict 
just  what  would  happen  when  the  protective  barriers  of  the  United  States 
were  removed.  They  knew  they  would  get  the  lion's  share  of  the  trade 
and  that  they  would  be  able  to  seize  and  monopolize  our  markets.  This 
is  proven  by  the  many  statements  of  Englishmen  which  have  been  quoted 
in  a  preceding  chapter,  and  especially  by  Mr.  McCulloch's  declaration, 
"that  nothing  but  the  aid  derived  from  restrictive  regulations  atid prohibi- 
tions will  be  effectual  to  prevent  the  total  destruction  of  their  establishment 
in  the  countries  where  they  are  set  up."  .  .  .  "It  is  ludicrous,  indeed, 
to  suppose  that  a  half  peopled  country  like  America  .  .  .  should  be 
able  successfully  to  conte7id  in  manufacturi^ig  industry  with  an  old-settled, 
fully-peopled  and  very  rich  coutitry  like  Great  Britaiti."  ' 

The  removal  of  duties  resulted  in  busy  factories  in  England,  and  idle 
factories  in  America.  This  was  the  purpose  sought  to  be  accomplished 
by  the  free  traders  of  England  and  their  allies  in  the  United  States. 

R.  W.  Thompson,  in  his  ''History  of  the  Tariff,"  said: 

A  man  who,  in  conducting  his  individual  affairs,  buys  more  than  he  is  able  to 
pay  for  will  assured!}-  reach  insolvency  in  the  end,  no  matter  what  his  wealth. 
The  rule  applies  equally  to  the  aggregate  communities  who  constitute  nations,  with 
regard  to  their  commercial  intercourse  with  other  countries.  If  we  follow  the 
advice  of  those  who  desire  that  duties  shall  be  laid  for  revenue  alone,  and  neglect 
to  consider  our  ability  to  purchase  and  pay  for  the  imported  articles  we  buy  from 
abroad,  our  policy  is  necessarily  short-sighted  in  this:  that  we  omit  any  considera- 
tion of  the  question  whether  the  balance  of  trade  is  for  or  against  us — in  other 
words,  whether  we  are  or  are  not  able  to  pay  for  what  we  buy  from  abroad. 
Whensoever,  in  our  past  experience,  we  have  found  ourselves  in  debt  beyond  our 
ability  to  pay,  we  have  been  confronted  by  the  impairment  of  our  national  credit; 
and  the  government  in  consequence  of  diminished  importations,  in  some  cases, 
and  unnecessarily  low  duties  in  others,  has  been  left  without  revenue  enough  for 
its  support.      Our  experience  under  the  revenue  tariffs  of  1846  and  1S57  attest  this. - 

Year  by  year,  from  1846  to  1S60,  imports  increased  as  the  labor  and 
capital  of  the  United  States  were  driven  to  the  wall  and  their  products 
displaced  by  Briti.sh  goods.  The  preceding  table  of  the  imports  of  the 
principal  manufactured  articles  from  1846  to  i860  shows  the  operation  of 
this  policy.  Yet  these  vast  imports  of  commodities  which  were  depriving 
our  labor  and  capital  of  employment  form  a  part  of  the  foreign  trade  which 
is  being  pointed  out  by  free  traders  as  an  indication  of  prosperity. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  VNITED  STATES. 

The  iujur>-  which  the  free  trade  policy  inflicted  upon  the  country 
during  this  period  from  1846  to  i860  has  been  fully  illustrated.  It  is 
but  just  and  fair  to  note  any  benefits  that  came,  even  though  they  were 
temporary.  The  one  and  only  really  lasting  benefit  was  in  our  cotton 
production.  The  crop  and  exportation  were  as  follows,  from  1847  to  i860 
inclusive: 

Bales  Produced,  Value  Exported. 

1847 1,77^.651  #53.415.848 

184S 2,347,634  61,998.294 

1849 2,729,596  66,396,967 

1850, 2,096,706  71,984,616 

1851 2,355,257  112,315,317 

1852, 3,015,029  87,965,732 

1853, 3,262,.S82  109,456,404 

1854,     .     • 2,930,027  93,596,220 

1S55 2,847,339  88,143,844 

1856, 3.527.845  128,382,351 

1857, 2,939,519  131.575.859 

185S, 3. "3.962  131,386,661 

1S59 3. 851. 481  161,434,923 

1S60 4,669,770'  191,806,5552 

This  is  certainly  a  most  gratifying  showing,  nor  is  it  known  that  a 
single  inhabitant  of  the  United  States  begrudged  the  South  a  bale  pro- 
duced or  a  dollar's  worth  exported.  We  are  all  proud  of  this  magnificent 
result  taken  as  one  branch  of  our  industrial  growth,  but  it  would  have 
been  the  same  had  the  law  of  1842  remained  in  force. 

This  was  a  period  of  great  expansion  of  the  cotton  industry  in  Eng- 
land and  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  caused  by  improvements  and  the 
introduction  of  machinery.  Under  protective  tariffs  Germany,  France 
and  Belgium,  by  the  building  of  cotton  mills,  greatly  increased  the 
demand  for  this  product.  This,  too,  would  have  occurred  had  the  tariff 
of  1842  continued  in  force. 

Our  total  agricultural  products  in  1850,  as  given  by  the  census,  were 
in  value  $1,326,691,326.  No  total  comparison  can  be  made  with  1840, 
but  the  census  estimates  the  crop  of  the  latter  year  at  $800,000,000. 
The  gain  is  largely  attributable  to  cotton  and  rice,  the  latter  product 
increa.sing  from  80,840,422  pounds  in  1840  to  215,313,497  poimds  in  1850. 
In  the  production  of  rye,  potatoes,  tobacco,  sugar  and  miscellaneous 
farm  products,  there  was  a  decline  from  1840  to  1850.  In  horses,  sheep, 
swine,  barley,  buckwheat  and  orchard  products,  we  made  but  little 
advance  and  but  little  more  in  wheat,  hay  and  wool.  Eliminating  the 
four  years  of  prosperity  under  the  tariff  of  1842,  the  effect  of  the  Mexican 
war,  foreign  famine  and  the  discovery  of  gold,  the  decade  would  make 
a  poor  showing  indeed,  save  in  cotton  and  rice. 

1  New  York  Commercial  and  Financial  Chronicle.        ■  Annual  Report  on  Commerce  and  Na%-i. 


LOW  TARIFFS,   1S33  TO  ISGO. 


Nor  does  the  decade  from  1S50  to  1S60  show  any  better  results.     The 
highest  estimate  of  the  value  of  farm  products  iu   i860  is  $1,600,000,000, 
while  many  estimate  the  value  as  low  as  $1,400,000,000.     Admitting  the 
highest  figure  and  deducting  the  value  of  cotton  produced,  and  again  for 
a  decade  we  find  no  material  advance.     The  true  figures  would  probably 
show  a  considerable  decline.     And  j-et,  it  was  in  behalf  of  agriculture 
that  we  were  made  to  sacrifice  so  much.     We  were  to  feed  the  world,  yet 
our  own  people  were  star\-ing.     This  is  what  free  trade  did  for  agricul- 
ture.     What  did  it  do  for  manufactures?     The  following  table  will  show 
the  total  and  per  capita  value  of  product  and  the  number  of  hands  employed 
in  1840,  1850  and  i86o: 

The  decade 
f.um  iSso 
:n  ,Sbo. 

1840. 

1S50. 

Populatiou, 

Value  of  manufactures, 

Per  capita  value  of  manufactures,    . 
Number  of  hands  employed,     .    .    . 
Per  cent  of  hands  employed,      .    .    . 

17,069,453 

1370,451.754 
21.70 
370,167 

23,191,876 
f  1, 019, 106,616 

43-94 
957,059 
4 

|i, 8851861,676 
59.98 
1,311,246 
4 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  gain  from  1840  to  1850  is  due  largely 
to  the  impetus  given  by  the  tariff  of   1842.     The  real  effect  of  free  trade 
unaided  by  unusual  causes    is   seen    from    1850   to   i860.       There   was 
no   gain    in    the   percentage   of    hands    employed,    while    in    1890    the 
percentage    of    hands    employed    compared    with    the    total    population 
was  eight,  or  just  double  the  per  cent  in  i860.    The  increase  of  per  capita 
value  of  manufactured  products  was  37  per  cent,  small  indeed  when  com- 
pared with  the  per  capita  increase  of  150  per  cent  from  i860  to  i8go  under 
protection.     But  a  comparison  of  percentages  is  at  best  misleading,  and 
it  is  only  by  a  comparison  of  percentages  that  the  free  traders  can  make 
any  favorable  showing  for  this  period.      Let  us  suppose  that  there  was 
made  of  any  article  $50  worth  in  1850,  and  $100  worth  in  i860.     There  is 
a  gain  of  100  per  cent.       Now  if  $200  worth  was  produced  in  1870  there 
was  another  gain  of  100  per  cent.    Should  $400  worth  have  been  produced 
in  1880  there  was  still  only  a  gain  of  100  per  cent,  and  if  $800  worth  was 
produced  in  1890,  there  was  still  the  same  gain  of  100  per  cent.     But  if  in 
1896  there  was  $1500  worth  produced,  making  the  gain  only  87  J-^  per  cent, 
still  the  actual  gain  in  the  last  period  would  be  fourteen  times  that  of  the 
first.     Thus  do  free  traders  take  many  of  the  newly  started  industries  of 
1842-46,  and  with  their  columns  of  percentages  make  a  wonderful  showing. 
In  1847  "we  made  40,966  tons  of  iron  rails.     In  1853  five  years  after,  we 
made  78,450,  a  gain  of  37,484,  or  92  per  cent.     In  1867  we  made  410,319 
tons  which  in  1872,  five  years  after,  had  increa.sed  to  808,866  tons,  a  gain 
of  398. 547  tons,  or  96  per  cent.    The  per  cent  gain  is  about  the  same  in  both 

Eslimalei 

ages  are 
misleading. 

TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES: 


cases,  while  the  net  gain  of  the  latter  five  years  is  ten  times  that  of  the 
former.  In  1846,  638  patents  were  issued.  In  i860  there  were  granted 
4.778,  a  gain  of  650  per  cent.  In  1876  there  were  15,595  issued,  and  in 
1S90,  26,292  issued,  a  gain  of  only  68  per  cent  for  the  fifteen  years  of  pro- 
tection, against  a  gain  of  650  during  the  fifteen  years  of  free  trade.  And 
yet,  the  total  number  of  patents  issued  during  the  latter  period  was  288,- 
207,  against  29,017  in  the  former  period,  or  about  ten  times  as  manj%  or, 
per  capita,  five  times  as  many.  While  this  allusion  to  the  number  of 
patents  issued  is  given  to  illustrate  the  fallacy  of  a  comparison  of  percent- 
age increase,  it  will  serve  to  point  out  most  significantly  the  effects  of 
free  trade  and  protection  on  the  inventive  genius  of  the  people.  Without 
ambition  or  hope,  the  mind  does  not  reach  out  very  far  ;  it  must  be 
wholly  occupied  in  solving  the  problem  of  existence,  while  under  pros- 
perit>-,  in  the  enjoyment  of  comfort  and  contentment,  there  is  a  constant 
desire  to  grasp  higher  attainments,  and  the  result  can  be  clearly  seen 
from  the  returns  of  the  patent  office. 

But  all  the  percentages  of  free  trade  conception  and  calculation  can- 
not make  wealth  from  poverty,  prosperity  from  bankruptcy,  or  gain  from 
loss.  Treat  the  period  from  1846  to  i860  as  you  will,  the  best  that  can 
be  said  of  it  is,  that  we  stood  still  in  proportion  to  our  increasing  popu- 
lation. And  had  it  «ot  been  for  a  succession'  of  domestic  and  foreign 
advantages  such  as  had  never  before  occurred,  and  probably  never  will 
occur  again  in  a  single  decade,  the  ruin  that  came  would  ha\-e  come  ten 
years  sooner,  or  been  ten  times  as  great,  if  it  were  possible  to  reach  such  a 
result.  But  if  we  suffered,  England  did  not.  She  gained  to  the  extent 
of  millions;  yes,  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars. 
Professor  Taussig,  says  ;' 

"  T/ic  revenue  was  redundant  in  iSjj,  and  this  was  t lie  chief  cause  of 
the  reduction  of  duties. ' ' 
And  again  : 

In  fact,  the  crisis  of  1S57  was  an  unusually  simple  case  of  activity,  speculation, 
over-banking,  panic,  and  depression;  and  it  requires  the  exercise  of  great  ingenuity 
to  connect  it  in  any  way  with  the  tariff  act.  As  it  happened,  indeed,  the  tariff  was 
passed  with  some  hope  that  it  would  serve  to  prevent  the  crisis.  Money  was  accumu- 
lating in  the  treasury  ;  and  it  was  hoped  that  by  reducing  duties  the  revenue  would 
be  diminished,  money  would  be  got  out  of  the  treasury,  and  the  stringency,  which 
was  already  threatening,  prevented. - 

What  are  the  facts?     In  1855,  '56  and  '57.  Ae  customs  receipts  and 
expenditures  of  the  government  were  as  follows  : 

Receipts. 

1S55 fe^,o25,794 

1856 64.022,863 

1857 63,875.905 

iHistory  of  the  Tariff,  p.  11.S.        =Id.,  p.  ilS. 


Expenditures. 
$56,316,197 
66,772,527 
66,041,143 


LOW  TARIFFS,  JS.13  TO  1860. 


Had  it  not  been  for  the  unprecedented  receipts  from  the  sales  of 
pubhc  lands  which  amounted  to  $28,885,492  during  the  three  years  pre- 
ceding 1857  there  would  have  been  a  deficit  in  the  treasury  each  year. 
Whether  these  sales  were  made  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  require- 
ments of  the  government  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  any  redundancy  was  not 
due  to  the  workings  of  the  tariff. 

How  about  the  balance  of  trade  for  these  years?  Since  1847  it  had 
been  as  follows: 

Domestic  Exports.  Imports. 

1S4S,       $130,203,709  8148,638,644 

1549,       131,710,081  141,206,199 

1550,       134,900,233  173,509,526 

1851 178,620,138  210,771,429 

1S52,       154,931,147  207,440,39s 

1S53 189,869,162  263,777,265 

1S54,       215,328,200  297,623,039 

1855 •I92.75i>i35  257,808,708 

1S56,      266,438,051  310,432,310 

1857,      278,906,713  348,428,342 

Total, 11,873.658,569  12,359.635,860 

Balance  against  us, $485,977,291 

Or  an  annual  average  of 48,597,729 

Now,  how  much  coin  and  bullion  were  we  compelled'  to  send  away 
to  pay  for  this  excessive  importation  ? 

Exports  of  Goi,d  .\nd  Silver  Coin  and  Bullion  from  the  United  States. 


Domestic. 

Foreign. 

■       Total. 

1848 •  • 

1849 

12,700,412 
956,874 
2,046,679 
18,069,580 
37,437,387 
23,548,535 
38,062,570 
53,957,418 
44,148,279 
60,078,352 

$13,141,204 
4,447,774 
5.476,315 
11,403,172 
5,236,29s 
3,938,340 
3,2iS,934 
2,289,925 
1,597.206 
9,058,570 

115,841,616 
5,404,64s 
7,522,994 
29,472,752 
42,674,135 
27,486,875 
41,281,504 
56,247,343 
45,745,485 
69,136,922 

1850, 

1852, 

1853,  

1854,  .  •  

1855 

1857, 

Total,      . 

$340,814,274 

Not  in  a  single  year  of  the  ten  was  the  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor; 
not  a  single  year  passed  without  our  sending  away  our  gold  in  large  amounts. 
And  yet  Professor  Taussig  would  have  us  believe  that  the  reduction  of  duties 
in  1857  '^^'^s  due  to  the  "redundant"  condition  of  thenational  finances. 

The  experience  of  the  United  States  under  a  high  tariff  or  a  low 
tariff  has  been  well  understood  by  the  statesmen,  economists  and  histor- 
ians of  the  world.     The  result  has  not  been  different  from  that  in  other 


TARIFF  QCESriOX  fX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


countries  when  protection  has  been  extended  to  their  industries,  or  when 
they  have  been  exposed  to  the  ruinous  competition  of  rivals  possessed  of 
superior  advantages.  The  dogmatic  free  trader  does  not  dispute  the 
effect  which  the  practice  of  protection  or  free  trade  has  on  the  industries 
of  a  country  under  those  conditions.  Their  position,  however,  being  that 
it  is  better  for  a  nation  to  forego  the  production  of  those  articles  which  it 
is  unable  to  make  at  a  lower  cost  than  they  can  be  produced  in  other  coun- 
tries having  superior  advantages  either  of  capital,  skill,  or  cheap  labor, 
and  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  market.  When  there  is  no  dispute  among 
economists  or  between  protectionists  and  free  traders  upon  the  effect  of 
the  two  systems  on  the  industries  of  a  country;  when  the  controversj' 
only  arises  over  their  relative  benefits,  it  is  idle  for  free  traders  who  are 
advocating  the  "  buy  in  the  cheapest  market  "  doctrine,  to  attempt  to  dis- 
guise or  misrepresent  the  effect  of  those  low  tariffs  on  established  indus- 
tries, or  to  claim  for  them  different  results  from  those  actuallj-  intended 
or  achieved.  That  we  purchased  more  largely  of  the  manufactures  of  for- 
eign countries  under  the  low  tariffs  than  we  did  under  the  high  tariffs, 
and  that  labor  and  capital  under  the  low  tariffs  found  less  employ- 
ment at  home  in  the  industries  thereby  affected,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
question.  That  high  tariffs  encouraged  the  building  of  factories  and  gave 
employment  in  them  is  equally  conceded;  the  contentions  of  the  free 
traders,  however,  being  that  industries  thus  brought  into  existence 
and  supported,  are  artificially  fostered,  and  that  the  result  is  to  compel 
the  consumers  to  pay  more  for  their  goods  than  they  would  be  able  to 
buy  them  for  in  other  countries  where  they  can  be  made  cheaper.  This 
being  the  common  argument  of  free  trade  writers,  the  free  trade  press  and 
the  free  trade  stump  speakers,  why  they  should  seek  to  misrepresent  the 
effect  of  the  acts  of  1846  and  1857,  is  inexplicable  on  any  other  grounds 
than  that  they  are  attempting  to  evade  the  responsibility  of  the  busi- 
ness depression  and  calamities  which  have  ever  befallen  the  people  under 
an  actual  test  of  their  dogmas. 

The  unwise  course  of  Southern  statesmen  was  fully  demonstrated 
when  between  1861  and  1865  they  came  to  measure  their  strength  with 
the  people  of  the  North.  Under  their  leadership  and  teachings  the  South 
had  become  imbued  with  the  principles  of  free  trade.  Although  possess- 
ing one  great  staple  product,  cotton,  for  which  their  climate  was  so  well 
adapted  and  in  the  production  of  which  they  could  hold  a  monopoly  of  the 
world's  markets  and  supply  cotton  factories  whether  located  in  Europe  or 
America,  yet,  as  is  now  being  demonstrated,  it  was  but  one  source  of 
wealth  and  formed,  in  fact,  but  a  small  part  of  the  natural  richness  and 
resources  of  the  country.  With  inexhaustible  iron  mines  and  coal  meas- 
ures in  nearly  all  their  States,  with  fuel  and  raw  material  lying  side 
by  side,  with  their  cheap  labor  they  could  have  established  cotton 
factories,  worked  up  their  raw  material  at    home,  and  rivaled  Manchester 


LOW  TAHIFFS,   IS-IS  TO 


in  the  production  of  this  fabric.  With  the  natural  resources  and  richness 
of  the  South,  a  diversity  of  industries  would  have  attracted  capital,  skilled 
labor,  and  developed  a  degree  of  genius  and  business  enterprise  which 
would  have  made  the  States  unrivaled  in  their  wealth;  but  instead  of  this, 
they  turned  their  energy  to  the  production  of  one  great,  staple  commodity; 
following  out  the  teachings  of  British  economists,  they  neglected  every- 
thing else  for  one  great  industry.  The  result  was  that  in  1861,  and  during 
the  war,  their  cities  and  towns  were  unprosperous,  their  capital  was 
in\-ested  in  cotton  plantations,  and  the  only  way  they  could  get  this 
product  to  the  market  was  by  running  the  blockade  of  Federal  cruisers. 
They  had  been  talking  secession  and  preparing  for  war  for  nearly  thirty 
years.  Industrially  they  were  little  prepared  for  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  North,without  believing  in  the  danger  of  a  rebellion  and  with  no  inten- 
tion of  preparing  for  internal  strifes,  had  availed  itself  of  the  advan- 
tages afforded  by  the  protective  regulations  and  in  every  way  possible 
built  up  a  system  of  diversified  industries  which  had  attracted  to 
it  immigration,  skill  and  capital.  Large  commercial  cities,  numerous 
industrial  centres  had  arisen  in  the  North,  which  had  a  population  of 
22,000,000  and  nearly  all  the  wealth  of  the  country ;  while  the  Confederate 
States  had  only  11,000,000  of  people,  and  limited  and  undeveloped 
resources.  In  these  circumstances,  the  contest  from  the  outset,  when 
the  chances  of  war  are  measured  by  property  and  wealth  alone,  was  an 
unequal  one.  The  South  had  threatened  secession  for  nearly  thirty 
years,  and  yet  in  1S60  it  had  only  seventy -five  hands  engaged  in  making 
firearms,  while  in  the  North  there  were  1987  in  this  occupation.  The 
South  had  only  1768  persons  employed  in  the  woolen  and  worsted 
industry,  while  in  the  North  there  were  31,500.  Although  producing 
the  raw  cotton,  the  South  had  only  9966  hands  engaged  in  its  manu- 
facture, while  in  the  North  the  number  had  reached  111,378.  With 
an  inexhaustible  supply  of  coal  and  iron  easily  accessible,  the  South 
gave  employment  only  to  5087  persons  in  the  production  of  iron  manu- 
facture, while  in  the  North  there  were  63,045.  So  we  might  go  through 
the  whole  line  of  manufacturing  with  a  comparison  of  establishments, 
hands  employed  and  value  of  the  product,  and  by  a  similar  comparison 
fully  illustrate  the  folly  of  a  people  possessed  of  great  natural  resources 
and  facilities  for  carrying  on  almost  every  kind  of  industrial  pursuits, 
in  becoming  wedded  to  an  unwise  industrial  system,  neglecting  the 
very  opportunities  which  nature  had  given  them,  and  failing  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  advantages  of  the  fostering  care  of  protection,  which 
was  enacted  to  promote  the  welfare  and  advance  the  prcsperity  of  every 
section  of  our  common  country.  North,  South,  Ea,st  and  West. 


CHAPTER  III. 
Protective  Legislation,   iS6o  to  1890. 

It  is  the  province  of  this  and  succeeding  chapters  to  show  bj-  facts 
and  figures  the  industrial  changes  of  our  country  since  the  enactment  of 
the  Morrill  tariff  in  March,  1861. 

It  was  on  March  12,  i860,  that  Mr.  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  introduced 
a  tariff  bill  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.  It  passed  the  House 
May  10.  In  the  Senate,  however,  it  was  put  aside  till  December,  but  was 
finally  passed  March  2,  1861,  receiving  President  Buchanan's  signature  a 
few  hours  before  his  leaving  office.  The  bill  went  into  effect  April  2. 
This  bill  increased  the  duties  by  about  10  per  cent,  and  by  the  changing 
of  many  duties  from  ad  valorem  to  specific  gave  the  new  law  a  dis- 
tinctively protective  character.  But  this  act  was  not  adequate  to  meet  the 
increasing  expenditures  made  necessary  by  the  war.  An  extraordinar>' 
session  of  Congress  was  convened  July  4,  1861,  and  a  bill  further  increas- 
ing tariff  duties  became  a  law  August  5.  This  was  practically  the  first  of 
the  war  tariffs.  On  December  24,  of  the  same  j'ear,  duties  were  increased 
on  sugar  yi  cent  per  pound,  tea  5  cents,  and  coffee  i  cent. 

The  Republican  party,  in  nominating  Abraham  Lincoln  in  the  preced- 
ing year,  had  made  protection  to  native  industries  one  of  its  cardinal  prin- 
ciples, and  inserted  in  its  platform  the  following  plank,  written  by  Henry 
C.   Carey: 

12.  That  while  providing  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  general  governments 
by  duties  from  imports,  sound  policy  requires  such  an  adjustment  of  these  imports 
as  to  encourage  the  development  of  the  industrial  interests  of  the  couutrj' ;  and  we 
commend  the  policj'  of  National  Exchange  which  secures  to  the  workingmen  liberal 
wage.s,  to  agriculture  remunerative  prices,  to  mechanics  and  manufacturers  an  ade- 
quate reward  for  their  skill,  labor  and  enterprise,  and  to  the  nation  commercial 
prosperity  and  independence. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  South  had  adopted  free  trade  pure  and  simple. 
Article  i,  section  8,  clause  i,  of  the  Confederate  Constitution  reads: 

The  Congress  shall  have  power :  To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imports  and 
excise,  for  revenue  necessary  to  pay  the  debts,  provide  for  the  common  defence  and 
carry  on  the  government  of  the  Confederate  States ;  but  no  bounties  shall  be  granted 
from  the  treasury,  nor  shall  any  duties  or  taxes  on  importations  from  foreign  nations 
be  laid  to  promote  or  foster  any  branch  of  industry. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  state  here  that  the  events  and  results  chroni- 
cled in  the  following  pages  are  a  true  histors-  of  the  times.  The  terms 
Nortli  and  South  are  used  in  no  partisan  or  offen.sive  spirit.      No  historian 


PEorEcriVE  LKaisi,ATTO.\;  ison  ro  ism. 


could  be  just  to  himself  or  his  subject  should  he  ignore  the  overshadowing 
fact  that  the  North  had  adopted  and  was  maintaining  the  policj-  and 
[irinciples  of  a  protective  tariff,  while  the  South  had  espoused  free  trade, 
and  was  carrj'ing  on  her  battles  under  the  banner  of  Cobdenism.  And  it 
can  safel)'  be  contended  that  protection  contributed  no  small  part  to  the 
successful  issue  of  the  war  in  favor  of  the  North.  We  are  told  bj-  free 
traders  that  it  was  the  war  itself  which  brought  about  the  wonderful  indus- 
trial advance  of  the  North.  The  truer  statement  would  be  that  our  progress 
and  prosperity  came  under  protection  not  because  of.  but  in  spite  of,  the  war. 

In  addition  to  tho.se  already  mentioned,  the  following  tariff  acts  were 
passed  during  the  war:  July  14,  1862,  general  increase  of  rates;  March 
31,  1863,  on  unsized  printing  paper,  crude  petroleum  and  coal  illuminat- 
ing oil,  20  per  cent;  April  29,  1864,  joint  resolution,  increase  of  rates  50 
per  cent  for  sixty  days,  extended  to  July  i,  1864;  June  30,  1864,  general 
increase  of  rates;  March  31,  1865,  rates  changed  on  cotton  manufactures, 
oils,  tobacco,  silk,  ready-made  clothing.  In  April,  1865,  came  Appomat- 
tox and  the  close  of  the  greatest  civil  and  industrial  struggle  of  modern 
times.  Without  protection  in  the  North,  the  struggle  would  certainly 
have  been  longer — the  result  might  have  been  different. 

It  is  pertinent  now  to  inquire  into  the  effects  of  the  two  tariff  policies 
during  the  finst  half  of  the  decade  from  i860  to  1870,  or  the  war  period. 
Various  reputable  estimates  place  the  expenditure  of  money,  property 
destroyed  and  production  prevented  during  the  war  at  $9,000,000,000. 
Nor  does  that  represent  the  whole  loss  to  industry.  Half  a  million 
producers  had  been  killed  and  a  million  disabled.  The  nation's  debt  at 
the  close  of  the  war  was  $2,808,549,337.55.  Our  expenditures  during  the 
war  amounted  to  $3,752,844,234.30.  These  figures  are  unprecedented  in 
the  history  of  nations,  and  yet  not  once  did  we  ask  a  loan  from  any  foreign 
capitalist.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Fessenden,  in  his  message  of  i864,said: 

This  nation  has  been  able  thus  far  to  conduct  a  domestic  war  of  unparalleled 
magnitude  and  cost  without  appealing  for  aid  to  any  foreign  people.  It  has  chosen 
to  demonstrate  its  power  to  put  down  an  insurrection  by  its  own  strength,  and  fur- 
nishes no  pretence  for  doubt  of  its  entire  ability  to  do  so,  either  to  a  domestic  or 
foreign  foe.  The  people  of  the  United  States  have  felt  a  just  pride  in  their  posi- 
tion before  the  world.  .  .  .  After  nearly  four  years  of  a  most  expensive  war, 
the  means  to  continue  it  seem  apparently  undiminished,  while  the  determination 
to  prosecute  it  with  vigor  to  the  end  is  unabated. 

But  this  was  not  all.  Our  people  had  not  only  supported  themselves 
and  the  government,  besides  furnishing  the  latter  with  nearly  $4,000,000,- 
000,  but  in  this  same  period  they  had  increased  their  savings  from 
$149,277,504  in  i860  to  $242,619,382  in  1865,  an  increase  of  over  65  per 
cent.  Had  the  tariff  of  1857  or  even  that  of  1846  remained  in  force 
during  the  war  whence  would  have  come  the  nionL'\  to  meet  the  above 
expenditures — to  furnish  the  government  with  even  the  means  to  exi.st,  to 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


say  nothing  of  carrying  on  the  war  ?  Well  might  Secretary  Fessenden 
refer  to  the  pride  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  figures  quoted 
show  the  monetary  condition  of  the  country  at  that  time.  Only  ap- 
proximate figures  could  be  given  to  illustrate  what  we  had  accomplished  in 
industrial  pursuits,  and  after  all  this  will  appear  from  the  figures  quoted. 
This  favorable  financial  condition  is  traceable  directly  and  solely  to  our 
system  of  protection  inaugurated  by  the  Morrill  act  and  maintained  by  suc- 
ceeding tariff  laws,  and  if  we  want  conclusive  proof  of  this  we  have  but  to 
step  across  the  Mason  and  Dixon  line  at  this  same  date  and  observe  the  con- 
dition of  a  people  wedded  to  free  trade.  The  cotton  crop  of  i860  was  the 
largest  ever  known  up  to  that  time.  Their  mines  were  teeming  with  ore.  But 
with  their  resources  was  that  clause  of  their  Constitution,  "JVor  shall  any 
duties  or  taxes  on  importations  from  foreign  nations  be  laid  to  promote  or  foster 
any  branch  of  industry .' '  This  was  their  past,  present  and  would-be  future 
policy.  Had  they  encouraged  manufacturing  before  the  war,  it  could  have 
been  maintained  to  some  degree  at  least  to  meet  domestic  need  and  the 
men  who  were  not  battling  in  the  ranks  could  have  battled  at  the  loom  and 
forge  and  the  women  and  children  as  well  might  have  been  a  hundred 
times  more  efficient  in  aiding  the  efforts  of  those  under  arms.  And  yet 
no  sadder  picture  can  be  drawn  than  the  condition  of  the  Southern  people 
at  the  close  of  the  war.  It  were  better  not  to  recall  the  memor\-  of  that 
time  in  detail.  It  can  all  be  summed  up  in  a  single  sentence  :  Worthless 
money,  idle  mills,  ruined  homes,  with  barely  the  food  and  clothing  neces- 
sary to  maintain  life  itself  Far  pleasanter  is  it  to  consider  once  again  a  united 
countrj'  and  note  the  progress  and  prosperity  for  the  succeeding  years  of  a 
people  under  one  government,  one  flag  and  one  system  of  fiscal  legislation. 
The  various  tariff  acts  from  1865  to  1870  were  as  follows  :  March  15, 
1866,  July  28,  1866,  March  2,  1867,  when  the  duties  were  raised  on  wool 
and  woolens  and  many  other  articles;  and  February  24,  1869.  By  referring 
to  table  on  page  631  our  progress  in  this  decade  can  be  readily  noted.  In 
wealth  we  gained  90  per  cent;  in  savings  nearly  300  per  cent;  in  per  capita 
.savings  250  percent;  in  manufactures  130  per  cent;  in  wages  over  100  per 
cent.  We  began  at  once  to  reduce  our  national  debt  and  the  following  table 
shows  not  only  the  reduction  for  the  five  years  following  the  war,  but  the 
increase  during  the  last  five  years  preceding  the  war.  Both  were  times  of 
peace  but  the  former  was  free  trade  times,  the  latter  years  of  protection. 

National  Debt. 
Last  five  years  preceding  the  war— free  trade. 


1S57, $28,460,958 

185S 44,700,838 

1859 58,290,738 

1S60, 64,640,838 

1S61, 90,380,873 


J 16, 239,880 
14,589,900 
6,350,100 
25.740,035 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,  1S60  TO  1890. 


First  five  years  following  the  zcar— protection. 

Year.  Debt.  Annual  Decrease. 

1S65 12,381,530,294 

1866 2,332,331,207  549,199,087 

1867 2,248,067,387  84,263,820 

1868 2,202,088,727  45,978,660 

1869, 2,162,160,522  39,928,205 

In  1870  the  debt  was  $2,046,455,722  a  decrease  of  $115,704,800. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  so-called  war  tariffs  were  framed  with 
a  view  to  both  revenue  and  protection,  and  that  all  revisions  made  since 
that  time  up  to  1890  have  been  made  by  the  Republican  part)-  solely  to 
eliminate  all  excessive  duties,  and  with  the  paramount  idea  of  protection 
to  American  labor  and  industry.  For  example,  at  the  close  of  the  war 
there  were  only  eighty  articles  on  the  free  list.  In  the  McKinley  bill  289 
articles  were  left  free,  and  over  50  per  cent  of  our  total  importations  under 
that  bill  came  in  free.  Protectionists  do  not  frame  laws  based  on  vision- 
ary theory.  Practical  experience  has  been  made  the  ground-work  of  each 
and  every  law,  whether  wholly  new  or  a  revision.  With  the  exception 
of  a  few  luxuries,  protectionists  would  impose  no  duties  on  non-competing 
products.  The  following  table  will  show  the  gradual  increase  in  the  per- 
centage of  free  imports  from  1867  to  1894,  inclusive: 


1S67, 


Per  Cent 
Free. 

4- 50 

4.40 
5-50 

4-74 


1870,, 

1871 S.12 

1872 S.51 

1873, 26.90 

1874 26.73 

1S75. 27-83 

1876, 30.26 

1877 32.02 

1878 32.24 

1879 32-45 

1S80 33.15 


1882, 
1883, 


1SS5, 
1886, 
1887, 


1891 


1893. 
1894, 


31-13 
29-42 
29.52 
31-15 
33-28 
33 -S3 
34-11 
34-27 
34.61 
34-39 
45-41 
56.30 
52.60 
59-53 


Note  the  large  increase  under  the  operation  of  the  McKinley  bill  in 
1891,  1892  and  1893  over  the  years  following  the  law  of  1883. 

A  consistent  protectionist  measure  puts  on  the  free  list  all  articles  tlie 
like  of  which  cannot  be  produced  at  home,  excepting  certain  articles  of 
luxury,  such  as  wines,  spirituous  liquors,  etc.,  and  imposes  adequate  pro- 
tective duties  on  all  commodities  the  like  of  which  can  be  produced  in  our 
own  factories  by  our  own  labor. 

The  tariff  changes  during  the  decade  from  1870  to  1880  were  as 
follows:  July  14  and  December  22,  1870,  rates  reduced  on  many  articles, 
increased  on  a  few,  free  list  largely  increased;  May  i,  1872,' tea  and  coffee 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


made  free;  June  6,  1-872,  reduction  of  10  per  cent,  free  list  further 
increased;  revised  statute  of  June  22,  1874:  Februarys,  1875,  known  as 
the  Little  tariff  bill,  some  rates  increased,  others  reduced;  March  3,  1875, 
rates  increased  on  sugar  25  per  cent,  repeal  of  10  per  cent  reduction  of 
act  June  6,  1872;  July  i,  1S79,  quinine  made  free.  The  most  important 
of  these  acts  affecting  a  single  industry  was  the  duty  of  one  and  one-quarter 
cents  per  pound,  or  $28  per  ton,  imposed  on  steel  rails  in  1870.  The 
manufacture  of  steel  rails  in  the  United  States  began  experimentally  in 
1865,  and  as  a  commercial  product  two  years  later.  It  was  not  till  1870, 
however,  when  the  industry  received  adequate  protection,  that  we  really 
began  to  show  the  world  what  we  could  do.  The  following  tables  will 
show  our  production  from  1867  to  1S94: 


1867, 

1S6O, 

1S&9 

1S70  ($28  per  ton  duty), 
1871, 


1S74, 


Sross  Tons 

Produced, 

2,277 

6,451 

8,616 

30.357 

34,152 

83,991 

115,192 

129,414 


S92, 


1S75, 259,699 

1876, 368,269 

1S77, 385,865 

1S78,   499,817 

1879, 618,850 

1S80, 864,353 

As  our  manufacture  of  steel  rails  has 
rails  has  decreased.     In  1872  we  made  808,866  gross  tons  of  iron  rails — 
our  largest  annual  production,  while  in   1894  ^^'^  made  only  4674  tons — 
our  lowest  production.     It  will  be  pertinent  also  to  note  the  importations 
during  this  period,  and  to  that  end  the  following  table  is  appended: 
Importation  ok  Rails  of  All  Kinds. 


Gross  Tons 
Produced. 
1,210,285 
1,304,392 
1,156,911 
999,367 
963,750 
1,599,395 
2,119,049 
1,390-975 
1,513,045 
1,871,425 
1,298,936 
1,541,407 


894,      1,017,098 

ncreased,  the  production  of  iron 


1867, 145,580 

186S 223,287 

1S69, 279,609 

1870, 356,387 

1871 505.537 

1872 473,973 

1873 231,046 

1S74, 96,706 

1875, 17,364 

1S76 256 

1877 3' 

1878, 9 

1879,    •    •    • 39.417 

18S0 259,543 


1S86, 
1S87, 


Tons. 

344,929 

200,  1 13 

34,801 

2,829 

2,189 

41.587 

137.830 

63.037 

6,217 

204 

253 

347 
2,8SS 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   ISGO  TO  1S90. 


The  3'ear  of  largest  production  and  consumption  was  18S7.  It  was 
also  the  year  of  largest  mileage  of  new  railroad  construction  in  the  United 
States.  The  decline  in  both  production  and  consumption  in  recent  years 
is  due  of  course  primarily  to  the  decline  in  railroad  consumption.  Two 
marked  declines  in  the  imports  will  be  noted.  The  first  during  the  years 
1874-79  can  be  attributed  to  the  financial  depression  of  that  period. 
The  second,  since  1887  to  the  present  time,  is  due  to  the  cheapening  of 
prices  of  the  domestic  rails.  In  1870  the  price  of  a  ton  of  steel  rails  was 
$106  in  gold.      During  the  first  three  months  of  1895    the  price  was  $22 

In  1872  steel  rails  were  included  in  the  10  per  cent  reduction  of  duty  but 
the  old  duty  was  restored  three  years  later.  In  1883  the  duty  was  reduced 
fo  $17  per  ton;  in  1890  by  the  McKinley  act,  to  $13.44  per  ton,  the  present 
duty  (  Gorman-Wilson  act )  being  $7.84  per  ton.  No  better  example  of  the 
workings  of  a  protective  duty  can  be  cited  than  the  figures  given  above. 
First,  the  establishment  of  the  industry  itself;  second,  constantly  increased 
production  and  consequent  decreased  importation;  third,  gradual  reduction 
in  price.  It  will  be  seen  also  that  the  duty  was  twice  materially  reduced 
in  protection  measures  to  meet  altered  conditions,  while  in  our  present 
free  trade  law  the  duty  is  just  28  per  cent  of  that  originally  imposed  in 
1870.  So  long  as  the  duty  added  to  the  foreign  price  with  cost  of  trans- 
portation exceeds  the  home  price  so  long  will  it  be  protective.  The  differ- 
ence in  wages  and  labor  cost  will  be  found  elsewhere  and  will  show  just 
how  much  duty  is  needed  to  protect  and  maintain  this  industrj'  in  which 
we  have  not  only  overtaken  but  left  far  behind  the  free  trade  mills  of  Great 
Britain. 

May  I,  1872,  in  accordance  with  our  protection  doctrine,  the  duties 
on  coffee  and  tea  were  entirely  removed.  In  June  of  the  .same  year  Con- 
gress also  passed  the  following: 

That  on  and  after  the  first  day  of  August,  1872,  in  lieu  of  the  duties  imposed 
by  law  on  the  articles  in  this  section  enumerated,  there  shall  be  levied,  collected 
and  paid  on  the  goods,  wares  and  merchandise  in  this  section  enumerated  and  pro- 
vided for,  imported  from  foreign  countries,  90  per  centum  of  the  several  duties  and 
rates  of  duties  now  imposed  by  law  on  said  articles  severally,  it  being  the  intent  of 
this  section  to  reduce  existing  duties  on  said  articles  10  per  centum  of  such  duties. 

The  .section  included  the  iron,  steel,  cotton,  gla.ss,  wool  and  woolen 
schedules  as  well  as  many  other  important  articles.  It  was,  to  say  the 
least,  most  unfortunate  and  untimely,  and  while  not  the  sole  cause  yet  it 
no  doubt  contributed  much  to  the  financial  trouble  of  the  following  year 
known  as  the  panic  of  1873.  Free  traders  love  to  dwell  on  this  panic  as 
having  occurred  under  a  protective  tans' — all  other  panics  and  periods  of 
financial  prostrations  having  been  accompaniments  of  free  trade.  But 
it  is  not  difficult  to  analyze  and  account  for  the  disastrous  times  of  1873 
and  the  six  years  following.  First  we  find  a  general  reduction  of  duties 
before  we  had  fully  recovered  from  the  war.     We  had  not  yet  restored 


TARIFF  QUKSriOX  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


the  number  of  producers  lost  nor  the  vast  property  destroyed.  When  the 
national  debt  was  funded  there  was  $150,000,000  needed  for  annual  interest, 
a  great  proportion  of  it  going  to  Europe  in  exports  of  gold  or  its  equiv- 
alent. Pensions  too  took  a  large  part  of  the  nation's  income,  over  $200,- 
000,000  having  been  disbursed  from  1866  to  1873,  inclusive.  Two  hundred 
million  dollars  more  were  diverted  from  the  ordinary  channels  of  busi- 
ness by  the  rebuilding  after  the  great  Chicago  and  Boston  fires  of  187 1 
and  1872.  But  these  were  not  the  only  burdens  the  people  had  to  bear  at 
this  time.  Being  on  a  paper  money  basis  all  gold  payments  added  a  hea\'y 
premium.  The  panic  had  been  averted  for  over  eight  years  and  when  it 
did  come  it  did  not  bring  general  disaster  so  much  as  individual  loss  and 
sacrifice.  "And  strongest  of  all  points  (quoting  Mr.  Blaine  in  his  answer 
to  Gladstone),  the  financial  distress  was  relieved  and  prosperity  restored 
under  protection,  whereas  the  ruinous  effects  of  panics  under  free  trade 
have  never  been  removed  except  by  a  resort  to  protection. ' '  We  had  been 
living  during  and  after  the  war  under  inflated  valuations.  When  prices 
began  to  fall  toward  a  normal  basis,  it  brought  about  a  readjustment  of 
every  department  of  production,  and  every  kind  of  business.  One  of  Presi- 
dent Grant's  first  messages  to  Congress  recommended  a  speedy  return  to 
specie  payments.  This  was  the  first  step  toward  bringing  the  country 
down  from  the  inflated  condition  that  existed. 

While  the  panic  of  1873  in  the  United  States  was  followed  by  a  period 
of  great  industrial  prosperity  and  growth,  the  reverse  has  been  the  case  in 
free  trade  England.  The  depression  which  set  in  there  in  1876  has  grown 
in  intensity  up  to  1895,  when  relieved  in  part  by  our  Democratic  Congress. 
While  England  was  neglecting  her  home  market  under  free  trade,  the 
people  of  the  United  States  were  preserving  and  protecting  theirs  by  which 
they  were  enabled  to  save  all  of  the  results  of  the  enterprise,  energ}-  and 
industry  of  their  own  people. 

In  June,  1874,  the  tariff  was  revised  and  in  March  of  the  following  year 
the  10  per  cent  reduction  of  1872  was  repealed.  It  was  now  thought  best 
to  begin  the  preparations  for  a  return  to  specie  payments  and  a  law  to  that 
effect  was  passed  in  1875  to  take  effect  January  i,  1879.  Notwithstanding 
the  financial  disasters  which  continued  for  six  years  of  this  decade  and  the 
changes  consequent  upon  a  return  to  coin  payment,  a  most  wonderful 
industrial  advance  was  made.  In  population  we  gained  30  per  cent.  Of 
wealth  we  added  over  $13,000,000,000,  a  gain  of  44  per  cent.  In  savings 
we  gained  49  per  cent.  In  total  manufactures  27  per  cent,  and  iron  and 
steel  production  nearly  200  per  cent.  We  increased  our  railroad  mileage 
by  over  40,000.  In  fact  we  gained  in  every  branch  of  industry,  at  the 
same  time  reducing  the  national  debt  by  $322,462,622.  Again,  for  a 
decade  were  the  wisdom  and  strength  of  a  protective  tariff  demonstrated. 
It  had  withstood  war  and  its  effect  ten  years  before.  It  had  now  with- 
stood a  prolonged  financial  depression.      In  each  case  the  nation  had  done 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   1860  TO  1890. 


an  increased  business,  added  to  its  wealth  and  paid  oflF  much  of  its  obliga- 
tions. While  other  nations  were  declining  in  material  welfare  or  at  best 
standing  still,  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  advancing  with  rapid 
strides  to  the  foremost  position  the3'  now  occupy  in  all  things  pertaining 
to  the  welfare  of  man. 

The  causes  which  led  to  the  revival  of  the  tariif  question  as  a  party 
issue  soon  after  iS8o,  will  be  discussed  in  a  later  chapter.  It,  however, 
was  forced  into  prominence  after  the  Congressional  elections  of  1882,  and 
important  legislation  followed.  President  Arthur  was  empowered  to 
appoint  a  tariff  commission  and  its  report  was  accepted  and  a  law  framed 
upon  the  lines  suggested.  This  law  became  operative  in  1883  and  its  con- 
sequences were  very  manifest.  The  law  was  supposed  to  reflect  the 
wishes  of  the  people.  The  "War  Tariff"  and  "  Robber  Baron  "  cries 
were  repeated  over  and  over  again,  till  certain  weak  Republicans  suc- 
cumbed and  the  law  of  1883  was  passed,  making  most  radical  changes. 
It  was  thought  bj-  protectionists  that  if  concessions  were  made,  even  at  a 
sacrifice,  the  tariff  agitation  would  cease  for  years  to  come.  In  fact  it  was 
a  general  belief  that  the  bill  of  the  Tariff  Commission  if  accepted  would 
stand  for  at  least  twenty  years.  Consequently  the  changes  were  made.  The 
cotton  schedule  was  cut  down,  while  the  duties  on  mauy  forms  of  iron  and 
upon  agricultural  products  were  lowered  beyond  the  point  of  safety.  More- 
over such  changes  were  made  in  the  wool  and  woolen  schedule  as  to  affect 
those  industries  most  disastrously.  And  here  is  to  be  seen  the  insidious 
craftiness  of  the  Cobdenites  and  their  American  allies.  In  1883  as  in  1888 
and  1894  the  fiercest  part  of  the  battle  was  waged  against  our  wool  and 
woolen  interests.  England  could  not  hope  to  break  down  our  iron  industries. 
We  have  long  since  ceased  to  depend  upon  her  for  those  products.  But  in 
the  wool  industry  she  inserted  an  entering  wedge  and  that  wedge  has 
already  made  a  large  gap.  In  1 867  when  the  protective  wool  tariff  went  into 
effect  we  had  39,385,386  sheep.  In  1884  they  numbered  50,626,626,  the 
highest  number  this  countn,'  has  ever  known.  But  the  effect  of  the  tariff  of 
1S83  was  such  as  to  reduce  the  number  to  42,599,079  in  1889.  The  true 
measure  of  the  growth  of  the  wool  industry,  however,  is  not  so  much  the 
number  of  sheep  as  the  amount  of  fleece.  The  number  of  pounds  of  wool 
grown  in  1S67  was  160,000,000.  In  1884  it  had  increased  to  300,000,000 
pounds,  but  had  fallen  off  again  to  265,000,000  pounds  in  1889.  These 
figures  most  vividly  illustrate  the  workings  of  the  tariff  in  wool  produc- 
tion. 

With  adequate  protection  we  would  soon  have  100,000,000  sheep  and 
grow  every  pound  of  wool  we  need.  "  But,"  says  the  free  trader,  "we 
can't  grow  all  kinds.  It  is  necessary  to  import  a  certain  quantity  of 
the  finer  wools  and  we  should  not  tax  that  when  by  importing  it  free 
it  would  give  increased  employment  to  laborers  in  our  woolen  mills  and 
cheaper  clothing  to  all."     This  fallacy  has  been  exploded  so  many  times 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  CXITED  STATES. 


that  it  seems  superfluous  to  refer  to  it  again.  Pages  of  testimony  can  be 
given  to  prove  that  we  can  raise  as  fine  wool  here  as  in  any  part  of  the 
world — that  we  can  by  proper  protection  and  development  raise  afir  and  a// 
kinds.  The  following  quotation  is  from  a  letter  written  by  Secretary  of 
Agriculture,  Hon.  J.  M.  Ru,sk,  to  Colonel  Albert  Clarke,  dated  February 
28,  1890: 

" //  [the  United  States]  fan  produce  ivith  no  limitations  of  practical 
importance,  all  the  races  and  breedi  of  sheep  in  the  ivorld. 

Another  extract  from  the  same  letter  is  as  follows: 

"As  to  carpet  wools:  The  principal  reason  why  they  have  not  been 
produced  in  sulficient  quantities  is  because  the}-  have  been  discriminated 
against  in  tariff  rates." 

The  American  Consul  at  Sidney,  New  South  Wales,  G.  \V.  Griffin, 
in  his  report  to  the  Department  of  State,  March  23,  1891,  says: 

' '  The  samples  of  American  wool  and  especially  those  grown  iu  the 
State  of  Ohio,  sent  to  Melbourne  International  Exposition,  were  admitted 
by  experts  to  be  far  superior  to  anything  of  the  kind  ever  grown  in  these 
colonies. ' ' 

William  Whitman,  president  of  the  National  Association  of  Wool 
Manufacturers,  in  an  ofiicial  letter  to  Je.sse  Metcalf,  November  22, 1889,  said: 

"  In  my  judgment  the  American  staple  wools  are  better  adapted  for 
the  fabrication  of  satisfactory  clothing  for  the  American  people  than  any 
other  wool  grown." 

But  we  are  told  by  the  free  trader  that  we  must  needs  import  certain 
wools  to  "  mix  "  with  our  own.  The  following  testimofiy  of  a  manufac- 
turer of  woolen  goods  will  refute  this  claim.  Charles  Fletcher,  of  the 
Providence  Worsted  Mills,  in  a  letter,  February  18,  1890,  to  the  Boston 
Home  Market  Club,  said: 

' '  The  talk  of  '  mixing  '  Australian  wool  to  make  goods  required  for 
this  market  is  all  nonsense,  as  Australian  wools  are  only  used  largely 
here  when  they  are  cheaper  than  domestic  wool."  On  February  21,  1890, 
Ju.stice,  Bateman  &  Co.,  with  a  knowledge  of  the  real  facts  unsurpassed 
by  any  experts  in  the  world,  wrote: 

These  statements  are  not  correct  iu  any  particular.  The  iinest  and  strongest 
wool  ever  raised  in  any  part  of  the  world  has  been  rai.sed  from  Saxony  sheep  in  the 
section  of  the  country  where  the  rivers  flow  toward  and  into  the  Ohio  Valley.  It 
has  decreased  because  the  American  wool -growers  are  handicapped  by  the  reduced 
tariff  of  1883,  and  cannot  compete  with  the  .\nstralian  wool -growers.  With  regard 
to  carpet  wool,  the  wool  liouses  of  Philadelphia  formerly  sold  millions  of  pounds 
of  carpet  wool  from  New  Mexico.  Carpet  manufacturers  declared  that  it  was  the 
best  carpet  wool  in  the  world. 

William  L.  Black,  of  Fort  McKavett,  Menard  County,  Texas,  a 
prominent  wool  grower  of  that  State,  in  a  letter  January  7,  1889,  pub- 
lished in  the  Philadelphia  Manufacturer  of  March,  says: 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   1860  TO  1890. 

"  It  is,  in  my  opinion,  quite  possible  to  produce  carpet  wools  profitably 
in  the  United  States,  and  this  will  certainlj'  be  done  if  the  tariff  is  amended 
to  protect  this  branch  of  the  industry." 

A.  E.  Shepard,  president  Texas  Wool  Growers,  in  a  letter  to  William 
Lawrence,  January  i6,  1888,  said: 

"  I  say  most  emphatically  tliat  with  sufficient  wool  protection  the 
United  States  can  produce  a  sufficient  quantity  of  carpet  wool  to  supply 
the  carpet  wools  of  this  country." 

J.  F.  Gibbs,  of  Greeley,  Colo.,  January  2,  iSgo,  before  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  First  Session,  Fifty-first  Congress,  Tariff  Hearings,  p. 
184,  said  as  to  carpet  wool  sheep  in  Colorado: 

"Ten  years  ago  the  coarse-wooled  American  sheep  were  abundant. 
The  low  duty  on  carpet  wool  has  driven  them  all  from  the  field.  They 
were  the  poor  man's  sheep,  good  '  rustlers,'  good  mothers,  and  prolific. 
They  were  the  sheep  for  the  plain  lands  where  there  was  no  chance  to  put 
up  hay  for  the  winter." 

Surely  this  is  conclusive  testimony  as  to  our  ability  to  raise  our  own 
wool. 

With  our  own  decline  in  wool  products  came  of  course  increased  impor- 
tation as  shown  in  the  following  table  : 

Importation  of  Wool  and  Woolens. 

1S83.  1SS9. 

Wool.                                                                                                                        Pounds.  Pounds. 

Clothing .  11,546,530  29,226,317 

Combing i,373.ii3  6,869,871 

Carpet, 40,130,322  90,391,451 

Manufactured  goods, 92,991,518'  157,000,000 

146,041,483         283,487,729 

But  the  loss  is  not  only  one  of  sheep  and  wool.  Increase  of  sheep  means 
increased  labor  in  raising  them,  and  corresponding  wages.  The  industry 
would  add  a  quota  to  the  railroads  and  canals,  with  increased  demand  for 
labor  to  those  engaged  in  transportation.  It  would  increase  farm  values. 
It  would  give  value  to  lands  fit  for  no  other  industry.  It  would  add  to 
the  number  of  pelts — again  giving  employment  and  wages  to  an  increased 
number  of  men.  It  would  give  an  increased  mutton  supply,  benefiting 
producer  and  consumer  alike,  the  farmer  gaining  a  double  revenue 
from  meat  and  wool.  Moreover  sheep  consume  grain,  and  with  100,000,000 
sheep  there  would  be  no  com  burned,  no  wheat  or  oats  gone  to  waste.  In 
short,  the  benefit  would  be  incalculable  and  we  can  well  see  why  England 
and  her  allies  in  the  United  States,  when  they  want  to  strike  down  an 
important  industry,  attack  our  sheep.  Continued  free  wool  means  ruin  to 
our  sheep  industry.  The  flocks  of  Australia,  the  Argentine  Republic  and 
other  countries  are  too  large,  their  pasturage  and  labor  too  cheap,   for  us 

1  Average  6  years,  1877-1882. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


to  compete  with  them.  If  we  are  to  raise  our  own  wool  we  must  have 
adequate  protection.  The  onh-  contention  then  remaining  is  regarding 
price.  Free  wool  may  mean  cheaper  wool,  but  even  if  protected  wool  is 
little  higher  than  foreign  wool,  any  increased  price  is  far  more  than 
compensated  for  by  the  benefits  of  the  wool  industry'.  But  free  w^ool  would 
not  rdean  cheaper  wool  permanently.  Protection  does  for  a  time  enhance 
prices,  but  our  vast  area  and  abundant  tracts  of  land  suitable  for  sheep 
raising,  and  the  competition  that  would  result  with  sufficient  protection, 
would  soon  bring  the  price  to  an  equitable  basis,  as  it  has  in  the  case 
of  evefy  other  American  product. 

It  has  been  wondered  why  a  Republican  Congress  should  have  given 
such  a  blow  to  the  sheep  industry  as  was  done  in  the  bill  of  1883.  In  this 
connection,  the  following,  from  a  speech  by  Mr.  McKinley  in  the  House, 
April  7,  1884,  will  be  interesting: 

It  is  only  proper  that  I  should  state  that  the  last  House  never  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  vote  upon  the  wool  duty  as  a  separate  proposition,  but  was  compelled  to 
vote  upon  the  Senate  bill  as  agreed  to  in  the  conference  committee  as  a  whole. 
The  alternative  was  then  presented  to  the  House  of  passing  the  bill  as  an  entirety, 
which  involved  reductions  in  custom  rates  and  large  reductions  of  internal  revenue 
taxes  amounting  to  $40,000,000  annually,  or  defeat  it,  and  thus  lose  everj-thing  of 
good  which  the  bill  contained.  Had  the  question  of  disturbing  the  wool  duty 
been  presented  distinct  and  separate,  the  reduction  would  never  have  taken  place. 
This  was  shown  when  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  authorized  one  of  its  mem- 
bers to  offer  as  a  committee  amendment  the  wool  duties  of  1867,  which  would  have 
been  presented  and  passed  had  the  consideration  of  this  schedule  ever  been  reached 
in  the  House.  Nor  would  the  conference  committee  have  failed  lb  correct  the  wrong 
if  it  had  not  been  made  manifest  by  repeated  votes  in  the  Senate  that  the  increase 
proposed  upon  wool  would  certainly  have  defeated  the  bill  in  the  Senate. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  law  of  1883  was  a  law  of  compromises  and 
concessions;  that  it  was  a  general  belief  that  the  tariff  question  would  re.st 
for  manj^  years;  but  as  soon  as  the  Democratic  House  of  1883  got  to  work 
a  free  trade  measure  was  reported,  known  as  the  Horizontal  Reduction 
Morrison  Bill,  but  it  failed  to  pass  even  the  House.  Other  bills  were 
reported  in  1886,  but  failed,  and  the  tariff  of  1883  was  left  undisturbed  till 
1890.  In  1884,  however,  for  the  first  time  .since  the  war,  a  Democrat  and 
free  trader  was  elected  President.  The  influence  of  the  Cobden  Club's 
tracts  had  been  effective.  Mr.  Cleveland,  though  an  accidental  man,  was 
destined  to  leave  his  mark  on  the  industrial  and  financial  interests  of  the 
countrj-.  When  a  Democratic  Congress  assembled  in  1887,  he  submitted 
his  famous  free  trade  message.  Tliis  message  was  only  a  reiteration  of  the 
chief  arguments  of  the  Cobden  Club  pamphlets,  which  had  deluged  the 
country  and  showed  that  Mr.  Cleveland  had  read  them  closely  and  with  a 
good  memory. 

The  President  was  evidently  an  easy  convert  to  Cobdenism.  His 
message  gave  no  sign  of  originality,  no  new  points,  no  fresh  thought.     It 


PROTECTIVE  LEIUSLATION,    1S60  TO  1890. 


was  simplj'  one  more  threshing  of  the  old  straw.  The  London  Times 
then  said:  "  It  is  certain  that  the  arguments  which  President  Cleveland 
urges  are  those  which  Cobden  used  to  employ  forty-five  j'ears  ago,  and 
which  any  free  trader  could  employ  now. ' ' 

The  message  was  hailed  with  joy  in  Great  Britain,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  following  dispatch  .sent  to  the  New  York  Herald  by  a  member 
of  parliament  : 

"  To  convert  the  United  States  is  indeed  a  triumph.  The  Cobden 
Club  will  henceforth  set  up  a  .special  shrine  for  the  worship  of  President 
Cleveland  and  send  him  all  its  publications  gratis.  Cobden  founded  free 
trade,  Cleveland  .«aved  it." 

In  1888  came  the  Mills  bill,  and  a  reopening  of  the  whole  question. 
It  was  impossible  to  pass  any  kind  of  a  free  trade  bill,  but  months  were 
spent  in  speech-making  by  members  of  both  House  and  Senate.  The  so- 
called  Mills  bill  was  one  of  the  mo.st  iniquitous  acts  ever  framed.  But  Mr. 
Mills  was  at  least  honest  in  his  utterances.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  say  free 
trade  when  he  meant  free  trade.  There  were  others,  too,  in  the  Demo- 
cratic party  who  used  the  same  term  without  flinching,  but  most  of  our 
free  traders  preferred  another  term.  The  New  York  branch  of  the  Cobden 
Club,  which  for  years  had  been  called  the  Free  Trade  Club,  was  now 
called  the  Reform  C1u1d.  Congressmen  and  college  professors  followed  by 
Democratic  speakers  and  editors,  took  i\p  the  word,  and  ' '  reform  ' '  was 
used  instead  of  ' '  free  trade. ' '  Especially  was  the  blow  aimed  at  the 
American  farmer.  Free  wool  was  made  the  keystone,  free  raw  material 
the  war  cry,  free  trade  the  end  in  view.  Unlike  other  free  trade  measures, 
the  Morrison  bill  for  example,  it  fa\ored  the  industries  of  one  section  of 
the  country,  while  it  menaced  those  of  another. 

The  following  from  a  speech  of  Senator  Plumb,  states  tersely  the  class 
of  men  who  framed  the  bill  as  well  as  their  methods: 

The  committee  consists  nominalh- of  thirteen  members,  five  of  whom  are  Repub- 
licans and  eight  Democrats,  but  six  of  the  latter  come  from  States  recently  under 
the  thraldom  of  slavery,  namely,  Texas,  Arkansas,  Kentuck}',  Georgia  and  West 
Virginia — these  States  thus  furnishing  six-eighths  of  this  important  committee;  and 
I  say  this  advisedly,  for  while  there  are  nominally  five  Republican  members,  the 
bill  comes  solely  from  the  eight  Democratic  members,  not  one  of  the  Republicans 
having  been  permitted  to  see  the  bill,  or  even  to  know  a  single  .syllable  it  was  to 
contain  until  it  had  been  published  to  the  country.  Every  Republican  on  that 
committee  might  as  well  have  been  at  their  homes  as  dancing  attendance  at  the 
committee-room  while  this  bill  was  being  formulated.  It  is  a  delusion  to  think 
that  there  were  thirteen  members  on  that  committee;  there  were  but  eight,  the  five 
appointed  from  manufacturing  States  and  favoring  protection  were  absolutely 
ignored ;  they  were  not  permitted  to  participate  in  the  work  of  the  committee,  and 
were  not  recognized  as  having  any  right  to  act  or  to  have  a  voice  in  its  delibera- 
tions; and  of  the  eight  practically  constituting  the  committee,  six,  as  I  have  shown, 
come  from  a  particular  section.' 

Congressional  Record,  p,  4924. 


TAUIFF  QUESTWX  IX  THE  UMTEI)  STATE^^ 


Tabic  Showing  Comparative  Growth  of  Principal 
Compiled  from  Census 


■m 


Agricultural  implements, 

Ammunition,    .    .  

Bags,  other  than  paper,         .... 

Boots  and  shoes,      

Bread  and  other  bakery  products, 

,  Brick  and  tile,  

Carriages  and  wagons, 

Cars,  street  railroad,  

Chemicals  and  allied  products,    .    .    . 

Clay  and  pottery  products 

Clothing,  men  s,  ... 

Clothing,  women's,  factory  products. 

Coffins,  burial  cases,  etc 

Confectionery, 

Corsets, 

Cotton, 

Coke, 

Dentistry,  mechanical, 

Dyein..;  and  finishing  textiles,     .    .    . 
Electrical  apparatus  and  supplies. 

Engravings,  etc., 

Fertilizers 

Foundry  and  machine  shop  products, 

Furnishing  goods,  men's, 

Furniture, 

Glass.  

Hats  and  caps  (not  wool) 

Hosiery  and  knit  goods,        

Iron  and  steel,  

Jewelry ..... 

Lumber  mills  and  saw  mills,       .    .    . 

Marble  and  stone  work, 

Musical  instruments  and  materials,  . 

Newspapers  and  periodicals 

Paints, 

Paper 

Paving  and  paving  materials 

Petrol'jum,  refining,      

Roofing  and  roofing  materials,   ... 

.Saddlery  and  harness 

.Salt, 

Silk, 

Smelting  and  refining 

Steam  fitting  and  heating  apparatus, 
Wool 


:,erof 

Establishments. 

Hands  Employed. 

1880. 

1890. 

■880. 

1890. 

1.943 

910 

.39.5S0 

42,544 

4 

35 

1,066 

2,267 

37 

64 

2,242 

3,760 

1.959 

2,082 

111,152 

139333 

6,396 

10,484 

22,488 

52,762 

5,631 

5,828 

63.355 

109. 151 

3.841 

8.614 

45,394 

73,453 

130 

166 

14,232 

35,929 

1,349 

29.520 

43,701 

752 

707 

10, 221 

20,296 

6,166 

18,658 

160.813 

243,857 

562 

1.224 

25.192 

42,008 

769 

1,562 

4.415 

9,65s 

1,450 

2.921 

9.S0I 

27,211 

"3 

.205 

8,802 

11,370 

756 

go5 

174,659 

221,585 

126 

218 

3,140 

9. 159 

753 

3,214 

541 

4,737 

191 

248 

16,698 

20.627 

76 

189 

9.4S5 

479 

817 

3.347 

5,642 

364 

390 

8,598 

10.158 

4,958 

6,475 

145.351 

247,754 

161 

586 

11,174 

22,211 

6,008 

5,973 

62,662 

92504 

211 

317 

24,177 

45,987 

4S9 

705 

17,240 

27,193 

359 

796 

28,885 

61.209 

792 

719 

140,798 

175.506 

752 

859 

i2,8So 

16,053 

25,708 

21,011 

147,956 

286,197 

2,846 

3,373 

21.471 

35.989 

429 

674 

11,350 

19428 

3.467 

16,566 

58,478 

165.227 

244 

382 

4,483 

8.737 

692 

567 

24.422 

29,568 

46 

704 

757 

22.730 

86 

94 

9,869 

12,47" 

493 

2,140 

3,082 

13.333 

7,999 

7,931 

21,446 

30,326 

268 

200 

4.2S9 

4.455 

382 

472 

31,337 

50,913 

4 

50 

1.765 

95 

217 

2,474 

i',779 

2,689 

2,489 

161,557 

219,132 

PROTF.CriVE  LEGISLA  TIOX,   ISOO  TO  1S90. 


Manufactures  in  the  United  States,  i88o-i8go. 
of  the  United  States. 


wages  Paid, 

Cost  of 
Material  Used. 

Value  of  Product. 

l| 

II 

,880. 

.8,0. 

1880 

1890. 

1880. 

1890. 

« 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

— 

15,359,610 

ii,%n.rM 

31.531.170 

31,603,265 

68,640,486 

81,271,651 

42 

18        I 

361,778 

1,110,482 

1,223,452 

2,759.782 

1,904,966 

6,538,959 

207 

243 

2 

776,026 

1,462,011 

8,027,770 

12,657,270 

9,726,600 

16,355.365 

88 

68 

3 

43,001,438 

66.375.076 

102,442,442 

118,7,85,831 

166,050,354 

220,649,-^58 

54 

33 

4 

9,411.328 

28,789,047 

42,612  027 

72,507.579 

65, 824, .^96 

128,421  535 

206 

95 

5 

13.443.532 

32,695,189 

9.774,834 

12,639,597 

32,833.587 

67,770,695 

143 

106 

6 

18,988,615 

40,198,522 

30,507,086 

49,889,173 

64,951,617 

114,551,907 

112 

76 

7 

5,507,753 

19,445.698 

19,780,271 

47,528,561 

27,997,591 

76,352,199 

253 

173 

8 

11,840,704 

25.321,077 

77.494,425 

106,521,980 

117,377,324 

177,811,833 

114 

51 

9 

3,600,727 

■0,138,143 

2,909,063 

5,618,401 

8,977.333 

22,057,090 

182 

146 

10 

45,940,353 

111,389,672 

131,363,282 

179,425,661 

209,548,460 

378,022,815 

142 

II 

6,661,005 

18,812,787 

19.559.227 

34,277,219 

32,004,794 

68,164,019 

1S2 

i'3 

12 

1,895,895 

5,554.409 

3.776,222 

9,203,941 

8,157,760 

20,013,694 

193 

145 

13 

3,212,852 

11,633,44s 

17.125,775 

31,116,629 

25,637,033 

55,997,101 

262 

lis 

14 

1,745.969 

4,062,815 

3,686,821 

5,662,140 

6,494.705 

12,401,575 

133 

91 

15 

42,040.510 

69.4S9.272 

102,206,347 

154,912,979 

192,090,110 

267,981,724 

65 

40 

16 

1,197,744 

4,186,264 

2,995,441 

11.509.737 

5,359.489 

16,498,345 

249 

208 

17 

269,014 

3,481, 189 

455,037 

1.475.255 

1,860,647 

7,864,299 

1194 

323 

18 

6,474,364 

13,664,295 

12,385,220 

32,297,420 

28,900,560 

50 

'10 

19 

683,164 

5!366,'i88 

1,116,470 

8,819,498 

2,655,036 

19,114.714 

685 

620 

20 

2,744.821 

4,104,361 

1,006,891 

1,396,912 

4,999.273 

7,294,143 

50 

46 

21 

2,648,422 

4,671,831 

15,595,078 

25,1:3,874 

23,650,795 

39,180,844 

76 

66 

22 

65,982,133 

148,3.89,063 

103,345.083 

171,145,156 

214,378,468 

412,701,872 

125 

93  '  23 

2.644,155 

7.589,349 

6,503,164 

15,280,572 

11.506,857 

29,870,946 

187 

165 

24 

25,048,414 

48,792,752 

40,011,090 

55,125,830 

85,004,618 

135,627.332 

95 

60 

25 

9,144,100 

22,118,522 

8,028,621 

12,140,985 

21,154.571 

41,051,004 

142 

94 

26 

6.635,522 

14.111,747 

9,341,352 

16,160,802 

21.303,107 

37,311.539 

113 

75 

27 

6,701,475 

18,263,272 

15,210,951 

35,861,585 

29,167,227 

67,241,013 

173 

131 

28 

55.451,510 

95,736,192 

191,271,150 

327,272,845 

296,557,685 

478,687,519 

73 

61 

29 

6  492,688 

10,857,967 

10,373.540 

16,593,660 

22,333,291 

36,215.511 

67 

62 

30 

31.845,974 

87,784,433 

146,155.385 

23i,5.'i5,6i8 

233,268,729 

403,667,575 

176 

73 

31 

10,238,885 

25,363.521 

12,743.345 

26,868,904 

31,415,180 

62,595,762 

147 

99 

32 

7,098,794 

13,306,383 

8,361,227 

14,435,563 

19.254.739 

36,868, 169 

87 

91 

33 

30,531657 

105,083,075 

32,460,395 

68,858,915 

90,789,341 

275,452,515 

244 

203 

34 

2,132.255 

5.605,626 

17,062,552 

24.930.532 
42,223,314 

23.390,767 

40,438,171 

163 

35 

8,525,355 

13,746,584 

33,951,297 

55,109,914 

74.309.38S 

61 

35 

36 

244,339 

10.450,970 

576,301 

13,891,005 

1,024,243 

30,644,072 
85,001,198 

4177 

2892 

37 

4.381,572 

6,989478 

34.999,101 

67,918,723 

43,705,218 

60 

94 

38 

1,411,133 

8,553,026 

3,382,354 

14,712,379 

6,227,284 

29,412,813 

506 

372 

39 

7,997.752 

16,030,845 

19,968,716 

24,674,225 

38,081,643 

52,970,801 

39 

40 

1,260,023 

1,782  49' 

2,074,049 

1,826,770 

4,829.566 

5,441.303 

41 

13 

41 

9.146.705 

19,680,^8 

19.208,683 

46,351,200 

34,519,723 

69.154,599 

115 

100 

42 

158.300 

1,122,353 

8,171,900 

25,285,191 

8,411,100 

28,188,826 

609 

235 

43 

1.305,739 

7,594,395 

2,857,000 

10,628,314 

5,127,842 

23,147,434 

482 

351 

44 

47,389,087 

76,660,742 

164,371,551 

203,095,572 

267,252,913 

337,768,524 

62 

26 

45 

TARIFF  QUFSTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  chairman  of  this  committee,  Mr.  Roger  Q.  Mills,  had  declared 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  in  favor  of  "  free  men,  free  labor  and  free  trade." 
He  had  further  said:  "The  more  confu,sion  the  tariff  makes  to  bu.siness 
the  better  I  like  it,  because  then  it  will  the  .sooner  be  done  away  with.  I 
desire  free  trade  and  I  will  not  help  to  perfect  any  law  that  stands  in  the 
wa)^  of  free  trade." 

At  the  close  of  the  debate  the  following  colloquy  occurred: 

Mr.  McComas  (Rep.).  "  Has  any  friend  of  this  bill  in  this  debate 
uttered  one  sentence  in  favor  of  the  American  tariff  system  \\-liich  dis- 
criminates in  favor  of  the  home  producer  and  laborer  ? ' ' 

Mr.  Hooker  (Dem. ).  "  No;  there  was  no  one,  and  you  will  not  find 
any  Democrat  to  utter  one." 

But  to  consider  some  of  the  main  features  of  the  bill.  There  were 
free  wool  and  free  lumber,  free  salt  and  free  stone,  free  meat  and  free 
vegetables — on  the  other  hand,  rice,  sugar  and  peanuts  were  left  with  a 
high  duty  on  each.  In  short,  while  the  duties  on  Northern  productions 
were  reduced  to  an  average  rate  of  27  per  cent,  the  duties  on  Southern 
productions  were  left  at  more  than  75  per  cent.  The  bill  was  a  mass  of 
inconsistent  tariff  legislation,  and  fortunate  was  it  for  the  country  that  a 
Republican  Senate  stood  in  the  way  of  its  becoming  a  law.  It  became, 
however,  the  i.ssue  in  the  ensuing  Presidential  campaign  with  the  result 
that  Benjamin  Harrison  was  elected  President  and  a  Republican  majority 
was  returned  to  the  Fifty-first  Congress. 

The  ten  years  from  1880  to  1890  were  the  most  prosperous  decade 
the  United  States  ever  experienced.  The  adverse  legislation  of  1883 
and  the  constant  menace  of  free  trade  brought  about  bj'  Mr.  Cleveland's 
election  and  message  of  1887,  together  with  the  Mills  bill  agitation,  had 
its  effect,  especially  on  the  wool  industry',  but  the  beneficence  of  a  pro- 
tective tariff  was  felt  on  every  hand  and  with  the  most  marv-elous 
results.  Our  wealth  increased  from  ^43,000,000,000  to  $65,000,000,000, 
a  gain  of  over  50  per  cent.  Our  savings  gained  in  like  propor- 
tion. Our  manufactures  increased  over  75  per  cent;  hands  emploj-ed,  75 
per  cent ;  capital  invested,  133  per  cent,  and  wages  paid,  140  per 
cent.  We  built  73,000  miles  of  railroad,  and  our  production  of  iron 
and  steel  showed  an  increase  of  about  200  per  cent.  During  these 
years,  too,  our  national  debt  was  decreased  by  $998,679,940 — nearly 
$1,000,000,000. 

An  examination  of  Table  No.  23,  on  pages  628  and  629  exhibiting  the 
comparative  growth  of  the  principal  manufactures  of  the  United  States 
from  1880  to  1890,  will  be  found  mo.st  satisfactory.  The  increase  in 
wages  earned  being  118  percent,  while  the  increase  in  the  value  of  the 
product  is  73  per  cent.  It  is  safe  to  state  that  not  in  the  hi.story  of  the 
world  is  there  to  be  found  a  period  of  ten  years  of  such  industrial  progress 
as  is  .shown  by  this  table. 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATIOX,   18G0  TO  1S90. 


In  closing  the  brief  review  of  the  legislation  between  iS6o  and  1890, 
and  the  reference  in  a  general  way  to  the  progress  of  the  nation  during  the 
several  decades  spoken  of,  the  writer  has  compiled  the  following  table 
exhibiting  the  general  features  of  the  wonderful  progress  which  has 
been  made  during  the  thirty  years  beginning  with  i860  and  closing 
with  1890. 

Table  No.  24. 

Tabic  Showing  General  Progress  of  U7iited  States,  i860  to  i8go.      Com- 
piled from  Census  Reports,  a?id  United  States  Statistical  Abstract. 


banks^de™ 


Products  of  manufactures 
Number  of  establishmenl 

Capital  invested 

Hands  employed.     .    .    .    . 
Wages  paid  in  mauufactu 

Products  of  agriculture,  . 


$16,159,616,068  J 

?5!4 
$149,277,504 

$4.75 
693,8701 
$1,885,861,676'  : 

140,403 

»l,009.855,7!5    : 

1,311.246. 

$378,878,966 

.$1,131,005,092;  : 

$6',645io45!oo7 


1  of  cottou.  bale 


Manufacture  of  silk.  .  .  . 
clay  products,  pottery,  el' 
Printing  and  publishing. 


Foreign  trade, 

Immigration,  total  up  to,    .   , 
National  debt  (interest  bear 


$98,330,584 
183,070 
11,838 


173.104,924! 
838,792.7421 

95,452,1591 
422,704,975 
$4,705,741 
$6,607,771 
$2,463,681 
$31,063.8981 

$6l7:l92',!76l 
5,285.3351 


$65,037,091.  :97| 

$1,039 

$1,524,844,5061 

$24,351 

4,258,893 

$9,372,437,283 

355.415 

$6,524,475,305 

$2,283!2l6i529| 
$5,162,044,076 
8$2,46o,lo7,454 
$13,279,252,649 
"$587,230,662 
166.706 


$207,208,696       $296,557,685       $478,687,519 


1,558,371!  50,155.783 

1,518.507, $43,642,000,000 

$780;  $870; 

I.874.358J  $819,106,9731 

$14.26'  $16,331 

.630,8461  2,335,5821 

1,325,442;  $5,369,579,191 

252.148'  253.852I 

1,208,769  $2,790,272,606: 

1,058,996  2,732,595! 

1,584.343  $947,953,795' 

i.427,242  $3,396,823,549 


?I77,489.739! 
287.745.626 
760,744,549 


1,305.212 

1.247.335 
3.835. 191 
232,500,000 
40,765,900 
5,755.359 
$267,252,913! 


44.336,072 

7.472.511 

$338,231,109 


214,373,219    287,597.334    35i.i58.< 


750,343,981 
^8,173.658! 
$41,033,045; 
$41,810,920' 
$90,789,341 
$21,154,571!  .  .  - 
$828,730,176!  $1,503,593,404!  81,647, 
7,735.855'    10,690,550^ 


398,308,257; 

$19,417,194' 

^.045,536 
$66,862,447, 
$19,!      -- 


:. "7,945, 776 
$59,352,548 
$87,298,454 
$84,827,785 

$275,452,515 
$41,051,004 


>.772 


38  !  Debt,  per  capita. 


l'$2>38i.5: 


30.295! 
$70,051 


39!  ^3 
391 1  24 
132;  25 


3.343  32 

787;  33 

368  34 

140;  35 


The  renewed  agitation  of  the  tariff  question  brought  to  the  notice  of 
the  public  not  only  the  industrial  development  which  had  taken  place 
under  protection  during  a  period  of  thirty  years,  but  the  condition  of  the 


1  Deduct  one-fifth  from  all  values.  2  From  Poor's  Manual, 
ron  and  Steel  Association.  *  From  Department  of  Agricultur 
Estimated.       '  1879.        '  1889.       '  1865.      a  Decrease  per  cent. 


TAKIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


people;  what  they  were  doing,  and  what  the}-  were  capable  of  accomplish- 
ing. Not  only  the  great  variety  of  articles  which  we  had  learned  to  make, 
but  the  vast  number  which  we  were  still  buying  from  Europe  and  unable 
to  manufacture  in  our  own  factories  under  existing  duties  was  brought  to 
light.  It  was  found  that  notwithstanding  the  marvelous  development 
which  had  taken  place  in  the  manufacture  of  textiles,  metals  and  other 
articles  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  were  still  importing  each 
year  vast  quantities  of  goods  which  might  be  made  at  home.  It  was 
discovered  that,  while  the  duties  were  sufficiently  high  to  afford  ample 
protection  to  those  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  nearly  all  coarser 
and  more  ordinary  articles,  it  had  as  yet  in  many  lines,  not  been 
increased  to  a  point  which  would  insure  the  production  of  more 
elegant  and  costly  fabrics,  as  well  as  a  number  of  the  commoner  sorts 
of  articles.  The  dutj^  upon  tin  plate  had  been  so  low  that  every 
effort  to  establish  factories  in  America  had  been  defeated  by  com- 
petitors from  England.  We  had  been  buying  $250,000,000  worth  of  goods 
a  year,  which  under  proper  tariff  regulations  could  be  made  as  well  at 
home.  The  duties  were  so  low  on  lace  curtains,  plushes,  pearl  buttons, 
worsteds,  ladies'  dress  goods  and  a  large  variety  of  the  finer  fabrics  that 
foreigia  manufacturers  were  successfully  competing  with  our  own  people 
and  preventing  the  establishment  of  these  industries  in  the  United  States. 
The  result  was  to  deprive  our  own  labor  of  emplo3anent  in  their  production. 
By  increasing  the  duties  on  this  class  of  articles  capital  and  labor  would 
be  turned  to  their  production  which  would  add  greatly  to  the  field 
of  our  enterprises  and  give  additional  employment  to  our  capital 
and  labor.  Again,  we  were  annually  importing  $89,000,000  of  sugar 
and  molasses  which  was  depriving  the  American  farmer  of  a  valuable 
industrj-.  Continental  countries,  as  has  been  shown,  had  developed  a 
system  of  making  sugar  from  beet  roots.  It  was  found  that  the  States  of 
Iowa,  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  many  other  sections  of  our  country  were 
well  adapted  to  the  growth  of  this  product,  and  that  bj' extending  to  them 
proper  protection,  the  incomes  of  their  farmers  could  be  greatly  enhanced 
by  the  establishment  of  this  industry.  Not  only  the  beet  root  industry 
was  remaining  undeveloped,  but  the  cane  sugar  industry  of  Louisiana 
and  Texas  was  languishing.  Our  population  was  increa.sing.  The  pro- 
ductive capacity  of  our  people,  through  the  use  of  machinery,  was  year  bj"- 
year  greatly  augmented  and  it  was  desirable  to  make  as  man^'  opportuni- 
ties for  the  employment  of  our  labor  as  possible.  Besides  the  tendency  of 
all  nations,  with  the  exception  of  England,  was  found  to  be  in  the  direc- 
tion of  de\-eloping  domestic  resources  and  producing  and  making  at  home 
everything  possible.  The  protection  and  growth  of  agriculture,  even  in 
den,sely  populated  Europe,  had  been  so  great  that  the  demand  for  foreign 
farm  products  was  diminishing.  Besides,  the  development  of  agricultural 
regions  in  South  America  and   Australia   had  brought  into  the  field  new 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   1S60  TO  1S90. 


and  strong  competitors  with  our  fanners  in  the  European  market.  Again, 
Russia,  x\ustria-Hungary  and  Roumania  through  the  introduction  of  agri- 
cultural machinery  arid  improvements  in  farming,  were  every  year  raising 
a  large  sui-plus  of  farm  products,  which  were  seeking  this  same  market  in 
competition  with  American  farmers;  and  through  railway  communications 
lying  nearer  the  markets  of  Western  Europe  than  the  United  States,  they 
were  able  to  undersell  them. 

With  these  economic  changes  taking  place  throughout  the  world,  with 
vast  agricultural  producing  countries  lying  on  every  continent,  with  a 
surplus  product  for  sale,  and  only  a  comparatively  few  people  in  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Western  Europe,  who  were  purchasers  of  farm  pro- 
ducts, the  chances  of  a  foreign  market  for  our  farms  were  not  only  yearly 
diminishing,  but  the  competition  had  become  so  great  that  sales  must  be 
made  at  prices  which  were  unremunerative.  The  necessity  for  preserving 
the  home  market  was  not  only  greater  than  ever,  but  these  circumstances 
had  forced  upon  us  the  imperative  duty  of  enlarging  the  home  market. 
How  then  could  this  be  accomplished  ?  Not  by  moving  in  the  direction 
of  free  trade  and  destroying  indu.stries  already  established;  not  by  relying 
on  the  sale  of  our  products  in  foreign  countries,  but  by  increasing  the 
incomes  and  purchasing  power  of  our  own  people,  by  enlarging  the  field 
of  their  occupations  and  employments.  Not  by  tearing  down,  but  by 
building  up.  Not  by  separating  the  farmer  further  from  the  consumer, 
but  by  bringing  him  nearer  to  the  one  who  was  to  purchase  his  commodi- 
ties. This  could  be  accomplished  by  increasing  the  number  of  factories, 
the  number  of  artisans  and  extending  further  that  policy  which  since  1 860 
has  brought  about  the  most  marvelous  industrial  growth  and  develop- 
ment. 

But  the  wonderful  advancement  made  during  the  past  third  of  a  cen- 
tury is,  after  all,  but  an  indication  of  the  possibilities  within  our  reach. 
Our  accomplishments,  great  as  they  have  been,  are  yet  but  a  beginning. 
Our  vast  territory,  our  almost  inexhaustible  resources,  our  tireless  and 
ambitious  people,  possessing  endless  capabilities,  all  point  to  an  expansion 
of  national  growth  and  industrial  activity  of  a  magnitude  only  to  be  meas- 
ured by  opportunity  and  time.  It  is  only  by  a  diversification  of  industry, 
employing  every  hand  and  with  the  greatest  advantage  to  all,  that  this  can 
be  brought  about.  It  is  only  by  a  vigorous  and  continued  policy  of  pro- 
tection that  we  can  reap  the  advantages  of  our  opportunities. 

The  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States  .shows  that  in  1890  we 
purchased  from  foreign  countries  manufactured  articles  of  the  value  of 
$295,897,655. 

The  following  computation,  based  on  the  imports  of  1889,  was  made 
by  Colonel  Albert  Clarke,  of  the  Home  Market  Club,  of  Boston,  showing 
the  employment  which  would  be  given  to  labor  by  the  production  of  some 
of  the  principal  articles  imported  into  the  United  States,  as  follows: 


Need  of 
increasing 
the  home 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Dutiable  Imports,   1889, 
.-l/id  the  Number  of  Me7i,   Women  a7id  Children  'who  would  have  been  Em- 
ployed in  Producing  them  in  this  Country. 


Kind  of  Goods. 

Amount 
Imported. 

Men. 

Women. 

2,013 

Total. 

16,389,325 
1,721,428 
2,460,390 
1,159,157 
1,686,456 

4,025 

14,088 

Musical  instruments  and  parts  thereof, 
Steel  billets, 

8  000 

3,250 

800 

1,500 

3,250 

1,500 
19,000 

Files                                 .    . 

65,223 

3,696,194 
35,122,766 

2,445,379 

9,609,687 

979,861 

Cotton  manufactures  (bleached,  dj'ed. 

1.343 

1,672 

74 

3,089 

35.000 

4,500 

100 

Still  wines                           

4,000 

2 100 

1,600 

13,332 

150 

liC 
38,050 
2,250 

5,000 
150 
200 

2,300 
75 

2,000 

1,000 

500 

'500 

1,600 

Wood  manufactures, 

Feathers  and  flowers  (artificial),    .    .    . 

13.332 

2,150 

Soo 

2,000 
420 
320 

'•IS 

5,000 

1,250 

50 

4,600 

'  150 

■  "    • 
5,000 

■  50 
700 

Yarns,    ...               

600 

21,669,669 
2,362,537 

14,741,295 
869,957 
420,822 

3,899,294 
164,292 

1,807,532 

431,839 

574,738 

1,435,331 

2,465,394 

2,542,383 

1,249,811 

860,703 

654,651 

5,422,949 

84,600 

1,623,736 

2,105,092 

5,328,056 

39,Soo 

Krown  or  bleached  linens,  ducks,  can- 

1,400 

300 

7,600 
75 

Cotton     manufactures    (not    bleached, 
dyed,  etc.;  bleached,  dyed,  colored). 

Iron  and  steel  forging, 

Iron  and  steel.    Manufactures  of  cotton 
ties,  hoops,  bands,  etc., 

Stone 

1,000 

Thread,  twine,  etc.,  yarn 

329 
300 
40 
204 

6,000 
45 

5,600 

■ : : : 

329 
650 

Paper,    .    .    .  ' 

350 

26^ 

10 
309 

Paints  and  colors. 

65 

Thread  (not  on  spools), 

Brushes 

775 
1,500 

Earthen,  stone  and  china, 

Chains  of  iron  and  steel, 

3,000 

1,500 

10,500 

45 

200 

Fish 

Fur  dressed  on  the  skin  (not  including 
manufactures  of  fur) 

Totals 

5,800 
» 50,000 

1139,588,391 

94,553 

35,657 

9.906 

248;593 

Now,  if  the  importations  of  1139,588,391  worth  of  goods  kept  out  of  employ- 
ment in  the  same  lines  of  production  248,593  persons  in  this  country,  it  is  inferable 
that  the  total  dutiable  imports  deprived«of  similar  work  in  this  country  nearly  800,000 
people. 


and   children  two  months 
lated  to  be  employed  in  V.w 


'  One  hundred 


and 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   ISGO  TO  1S90. 


These  figures  standing  alone,  important  as  chey  are,  express  only  a 
small  part  of  what  might  be  accomplished  by  a  revision  of  the  tariff  on  the 
lines  of  protection  to  home  industries.  The  Republican  party,  in  entering 
upon  the  legislation  of  1890,  was  prompted  not  only  by  a  spirit  of  patri- 
otism, but  controlled  by  the  same  wisdom  and  statesmanship  which  had 
guided  the  founders  of  the  republic  in  establishing  the  ' '  American 
System."  It  had  in  view,  not  only  the  preservation  of  the  industries 
already  established  but  the  extension  of  our  field  of  production  to  all  of 
those  articles  and  wares  which  were  being  imported.  This  was  a  step  in 
advance.  It  was  an  effort  to  plant  new  industries,  to  give  increased  employ- 
ment to  labor,  to  add  to  the  incomes  and  opulence  of  our  people  and  to  aid 
in  the  development  and  enrichment  of  every  State  and  territory'.  The 
future  industrial  growth  of  the  United  States  involved  a  steady  expansion 
of  industries  to  keep  pace  with  the  increasing  population,  not  only  in  the 
East,  but  in  the  South  and  West  as  well.  Wonderful  changes  and  new 
conditions  had  been  forced  upon  us.  The  most  important  were  found 
within  our  own  borders.  During  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  an  empire 
had  arisen  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  with  boundless  resources  and  a 
future  filled  with  immeasurable  industrial  possibilities.  The  great  North- 
west, the  States  of  Minnesota,  the  two  Dakotas,  Montana,  Idaho,  Wash- 
ington and  Oregon  are  larger  in  area  than  all  the  States  lying  east  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  excluding  the  State  of  Maine.  With  inexhaustible  agri- 
cultural and  mineral  resources,  with  vast  water  power  and  with  an  industri- 
ous, enterprising  and  ambitious  population,  this  territorj'  alone  is  capable, 
under  a  proper  system  of  diversified  industries,  of  sustaining  a  population 
of  100,000,000  of  people.  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  although  presenting, 
during  the  past  twenty-five  years,  a  most  mar\'elous  accumulation  of 
wealth,  are  now  ready  to  add  to  their  great  agricultural  development 
nearly  every  department  of  manufacturing.  The  Pacific  States,  Texas, 
New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Colorado,  Utah  and  Nevada  can  all  increase  their 
wealth  and  importance  by  diversifying  their  industries.  The  cities  of  the 
West  would  furnish  a  market  for  the  fruits  of  California,  while  the  wool 
and  cotton  of  Texas  would  be  worked  up  in  factories  near  by.  The  new 
South  has  just  entered  upon  an  industrial  career  which  is  attracting  to  it 
the  capital,  skill  and  enterprise  of  the  country.  The  last  few  years  have 
produced  most  wonderful  results  as  compared  with  the  inactivity  of  a 
generation  ago.  Mills  are  being  erected  and  put  in  operation  to  make  up 
the  cotton  grown  in  the  neighboring  fields.  Foundries  are  consuming  the 
coal  of  the  mines  near  by.  Labor  is  being  more  and  more  fully  employed, 
resulting  in  a  constant  increase  of  markets  for  products  of  Southern 
farmers.  Within  a  few  months  the  industrial  exhibition  held  in  Atlanta, 
Georgia,  attracted  the  attention  of  the  whole  world,  and  from  now 
on  the  South  must  be  reckoned  a  most  important  factor  of  our  industrial 
system. 


The  pur- 
pose of  the 

policy  of 
tSgo. 


TAHIFF  (K'ESTION  IN  THE  IWlTEn  STATE.' 


rndustiial 

Not  until  1880  had  the  South  recovered  sufficiently  to 

begin  manu- 

rrfnr 

facturing  on  a  substantial  basis.     What  it  accomplished  in  ten  years  can 

from  iSSo 
to  ,S90. 

be  seen  from  the  following: 

protection. 

State. 

Year. 

wages. 

Valueof  Product. 

1880 

;s 

1890 
18S0 

;is 

1S90 
1880 

;lo 

'^ 

18S0 
1880 

;^£ 

1890 
18S0 

,8,0 

1  2,500,504 

12,676,029 

925.358 

5,749,888 
1.270,875 
6,513,068 
5,266,152 
17,312,196 
11,657.884 
27,761,746 
4,360,371 
13.159.564 
18.904,965 
41.526,832 
1.192,645 
4.913.863 
2,740,768 
7.830,536 
2,836,289 
6.590,983 
5.254.775 
16,899,351 

7.425.261 
19,644,850 

51,226.605 

Arkansas 

6,756.159 

Florida, 

5,546448 

Georgia, 

36,440,948 

126,719  857 

Louisiana, 

24,205,183 

Mississippi, 

7.518,302 
18,705,834 

20,095,037 

South  Carolina         

i6;738,'o88 

31.926,681 

Texas, 

20,719,928 
70,433,551 

Virginia, 

51,780,992 
88,363,824 

It  should  be    noted  that,  great  as  was  th 

e  increase  of  product,  the 

per  cent  increase  in  wages  paid  was  still  greatei 

in  everj-  State. 

It   is  most  amazing   to   the  protectionist. 

of  the  countrj-   that  the 

business  men  of  the  South  should  give  a  blind  adherence  to  the  policy  of 

free   trade,  when  the  very  progress  which  has 

taken  place 

among  them 

during  recent  years  has  been  made  possible  through  the  protective  tariffs 

which  shield  them  from  ruinous  foreign  com] 

Detition.     If  manufactured 

goods  were  being  poured  into  the  country  from  the  Old  World  they  could 

not  induce  capitalists  to  build  factories  in  the 

ir  midst.     They  would  be 

forced  to  sell  their  wares  under  such  sharp  anc 

injurious  competition  that 

their  enterprises  would  become  unremunerative 

and  languish  and  die  out, 

and  they  would  be  left  again  to  the  production 

of  cotton  as 

the  principal 

means  of  support.     Their  cities  and  towns  would  cease  to  g 

row  and  their 

people  would  be  doomed  to  rural  pursuits.     The  progress  which  has  been 

made  in  developing  diversified  industries  in  the  Southern  States,  during 

the  ten  years  from  1880  to  1890,  should  furnish  them  a  profitable  les.son  in 

economics. 

l-tnther 

The  following  table,  compiled   from  the  ct 

nsus  of  the  United  States, 

nfprogrcis 

exhibits  still  further  the  progress  which  has  been  made  in 

the  Southern 

South. 

States  under  protection  from  1880  to  18 

50: 

PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   1S60  TO  1890. 


Total  population 

Whites, 

Colored, 

Actual  wealth, 

State  debts  (net) 

Total  public  indebtedness,  .... 

Total  State  revenues 

Banking  capital, 

Capital  invested  during  decade,     . 
Railroad  mileage,  ...  .    . 

Men  employed, 

Cost  of  railroad  equipment,  etc.,  . 
Number  of  manufactories,  .... 

Capital 

Value  of  product 

Cotton  mills 

Value  of  products, 

Cotton  seed  products,  value,      .    . 

Pig  iron  produced,  tons, 

Steel  proiluced,  tons 

Coal  produced,  tons, 

Precious  metals,  value, 

Total  minerals,  value, 

Value  of  lumber  output, 

Value  of  forest  products 

Lands  under  crops,  acres,    .... 

Value    of   agricultural   machinery, 

etc.,    ,  .    .  ... 

Cotton  produced,  bales, 

Value,  

Fruit,  value,  

Total  value  of  farm  products,     .    . 

Value,  livestock, 

Schools, 

Teachers 

Pupils  enrolled, 

Attendance,         

School  revenues, 


14.638,936 

9,007,187 

5.631.749 

56,098,000,000 

1118,195,252 

1189,345,464 

j$i3,249,S66 

J92.S75.000 

19.572 
86,250 

J5l2,OOO,O0O 

34,563 

S179.366.230 

1315,924,704 

161 

|i6,353,i82 

17,690,921 

290,772 

4.380 

3,820,550 

■  1225,176 

J3, 643, 020 

135,680,151 

^(46,979,062 

54.679.145 

$67,372,500 

5.733.675 

1258,524,911 

$9,084,173 

1611,679,145 

$360,066,883 

44,260 

49,182 

2,018,640 

1. 39 1. 743 

$5,607,081 


17.556,920 

11,361,996 

6, 194,924 

$9,751-815.635 

$96,460,126 

$183,772,353 

■^26,533,260 

$171,690,670 

$2.339, '70,000 

41,118 

ib8,73i 

$1,301,096,740 

56,714 

^551,483,900 

$742,865,200 

334 

$54, 19'. 600 

$27,310,836 

1,684,663 

183.625 

17.536.456 

»7i2,789 

$35,608,615 

$102,122,100 

$123,998,800 

75.551.429 

$120,750,000 

7,776,215 

$340,268,005 

$24,620,500 

$984,707,000 

$555,905,108 

66,647 

74,055 

3.359, '73 

2,181,109 

$14,767,396 


19.9* 
26.2* 
lo.o* 
62.5* 
i8.4t 
3-ot 

lOO.O* 


IIO.l* 

118.S* 
110.9* 
64.2* 
207.0* 
135-2* 
107.4* 
231.4* 
267.1* 
480.9* 
4,121.0* 
362.9* 
218.0* 
877-5* 
183.4* 
163.8* 


79.2* 
3.6* 
32-6* 

171. o* 
60.9* 
54-1* 
50.1* 
50.5* 
67-5* 
56-9* 

163.6* 


The  States  lying  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  are  just  entering  upon 
industrial  careers,  and  so  far  as  manufacturing  is  concerned,  are  where  the 
Eastern  and  Middle  States  were  in  i860,  yet  not  so  far  advanced.  To 
them  the  application  of  protection  to  infant  industries  is  as  necessary  as 
it  has  ever  been  to  the  Eastern  and  Middle  States  since  the  formation  of 
the  government.  Their  future  prosperity  and  development  requires  that 
manufacturing  centres  shall  be  established  everywhere  within  their 
borders. 

The  near  markets  which  this  would  afford  to  their  farmers,  the 
exchange  of  commodities  between  the  farms  and  villages,  the  increased 
employment  to  labor,  the  expansion  of  business  enterprises  would  add 
immeasurably  to  their  wealth;  but  if  the  development  of  manufacturing 
in  the  United  States  should  be  arrested,  their  energies  would  be  confined 
almost  exclusively  to  agriculture. 


TARIFF  QVESriON  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


If  the  New  England  States  needed  protection  to  infant  industries  in 
1828;  if  the  Northeastern  and  Northern  States  needed  protection  to  infant 
industries  thirty-five  years  ago  to  assist  them  in  a  diversified  industrial 
development,  certainly  the  great  States  of  the  South  and  West  have  quite 
as  much  need  of  protection  to-day,  because  they  are  new  countries,  just 
upon  the  threshold  of  their  industrial  lives  and  require  all  the  influences 
of  protection  to  aid  them  in  the  establishment  of  industries.  The  future 
industrial  progress  of  tlie  United  States  requires  the  extension  of  manu- 
facturing to  the  South  and  the  West.  The  people  of  those  sections 
will  not  long  continue  to  pay  freight  on  their  cotton,  wool,  iron  and  coal 
to  send  it  to  New  England  for  manufacture  and  again  pay  freight  on  agri- 
cultural implements,  building  materials,  household  utensils  and  cloths  to 
carry  them  all  the  way  back  to  the  South  and  West  for  consumption.  If 
their  home  markets  are  secured  to  them  from  the  destructive  competition 
of  cheap  foreign  manufactures,  they  will  soon  manufacture  for  themselves 
a  large  portion  of  those  coarser  fabrics  and  wares  for  which  they  have 
been  depending  on  the  Northeastern  and  Eastern  States.  That  this  is  the 
ultimate  destiny  of  these  States  is  absolutely  certain,  unless  through  the 
adoption  of  free  trade  the  development  of  this  side  of  their  industrial  life 
is  made  impossible.  A  continuation  of  protection  will  insure  the  devel- 
opment of  manufactures  in  the  South  and  West. 

But  what  of  the  East,  of  New  England  and  the  Central  Northern 
States  ?  What  of  the  old  seats  of  industry  ?  It  is  an  important  fact  to  be 
taken  into  account  in  considering  the  farther  extension  and  development  of 
manufacturing  in  these  States,  that  notwithstanding  the  wonderful  pro- 
gress that  has  been  made  in  the  various  lines  of  manufactures,  the  appli- 
cation of  machinery  and  inventions,  and  the  cultivation  of  taste  and  skill, 
the  people  of  the  United  States  have  scarcel}'  passed  beyond  the  production 
of  coarse  and  ordinary  articles.  Yet  still  we  may  be  said  to  be  approaching 
the  highest  degree  of  skill  and  taste.  We  have  certainly  shown  ourselves 
capable  of  making  many  things  which  the  free  traders  for  years  contended 
could  not  be  produced  outside  of  Europe.  In  bleaching,  dyeing,  printing, 
and  especially  in  designing  the  more  beautiful  and  costly  textile  fabrics  we 
are  inferior  to  France,  Germanj'  and  Switzerland.  We  rely  on  Europe 
for  over  $200,000,000  worth  of  manufactured  goods  and  articles  which 
find  a  market  among  us  solely  because  of  their  superior  excellence. 
The  production  of  these  fabrics  and  articles  in  Europe  has  been  at- 
tained through  long  3'ears  of  education  and  training  of  artisans,  aided  and 
encouraged  by  a  most  vigorous  sj'stem  of  protection.  The  establishment 
of  .schools  of  technical  learning  in  which  the  study  of  cheniistrj'  and  all 
the  scientific  phases  of  textile  manufacture  is  pursued  and  in  which  in.struc- 
tiun  is  given  in  the  art  of  designing  has  placed  Continental  Europe  ahead  of 
the  re.st  of  the  world,  and  the  superior  fabrics  manufactured  there  find 
markets  among  the  wealthy  families  of   all  countries,  despite  protective 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   1S60  TO  1S90. 


tariffs.  The  question  arose,  was  the  United  States  to  advance  to  the  pro- 
duction of  the  more  refined  and  costly  articles  which  are  now  being  made 
in  Europe?  It  had  been  demonstrated  by  years  of  experience  that  the 
duties  on  certain  articles  of  this  class  were  not  sufficiently  high  to  induce 
the  application  of  capital  and  labor  to  the  development  of  a  high  degree 
of  proficiency  in  these  departments. 

This  was  the  great  industrial  problem  confronting  Congress  in  1889, 
as  it  appeared  to  the  Republican  party  upon  its  being  restored  to  power. 
This  presented  a  progressive  question,  not  onlj^  in  its  application  to 
changing  economic  conditions  in  the  United  States,  but  it  also  had  a  direct 
bearing  on  the  future  industrial  pre-eminence  of  the  country.  As  the  pro- 
duction of  many  of  the  coarser  articles  would  be  transferred  to  the  West 
and  South,  the  older  manufacturing  centres  of  the  East,  with  their  capital, 
their  plants  and  their  industrial  population  would  be  directed  to  the  manu- 
facture of  the  more  costly  and  refined  articles  which  were  then  being 
imported  from  Europe.  The  most  enlightened  advocates  of  this  progres- 
sive policy  had  in  view  the  establishment  of  technical  .schools  in  which  the 
artistic  skill  and  taste,  which  is  becoming  so  marked  among  our  people, 
would  become  fully  developed  and  directed  to  designing  and  making  the 
most  beautiful,  costly  and  elegant  wares  and  fabrics.  Through  this  policy 
the  industrial  life  of  the  people  would  become  fuUj'  rounded  out  and  the 
United  States  would  ultimately  become  supreme  in  every  department  of 
manufacturing,  and  every  faculty,  every  taste,  every  aptitude,  and  everj- 
phase  of  the  genius  of  our  people  would  be  given  an  opportunity  to  a.ssert 
itself  and  reach  the  highest  degree  of  perfection.  The  world  has 
reached  such  a  point  in  industrial  development  through  the  progress 
of  manufacturing  in  all  countries  that  foreign  markets  are  contested  for 
with  more  strife  than  ever  before.  We  are  living  in  an  age  of  excessive 
production.  If  the  United  States  gains  a  foothold  in  foreign  markets  it 
must  be  through  the  superior  skill  of  its  people.  When  we  make  articles 
more  beautiful  and  more  de.sirable  than  our  competitors,  thej'  will  be 
sought  after  and  readily  sold,  but  we  cannot  rely  on  cheapness  as  a  means 
of  conquering  foreign  markets  without  reducing  the  wage  rate  of  our 
artisans  to  the  same  level  or  below  that  of  Europe.  Industrial  supremacy 
based  upon  a  sacrifice  of  the  homes,  comforts  and  incomes  of  our  wage- 
earners  is  purchased  at  too  high  a  price. 

In  keeping  with  the  will  of  the  people,  as  expressed  in  the  elec- 
tion of  1888,  and  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  the  Republican  party, 
the  Fifty-first  Congress  entered  upon  a  revision  of  the  tariff  for  the  pur- 
pose of  promoting  the  welfare  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  whom 
alone  it  owed  allegiance.  Thomas  B.  Reed,  of  Maine,  was  elected  Speaker 
of  the  Hou.=e  of  Representatives,  and  selected  as  chairman  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee,  William  McKinley,  Jr.,  of  Ohio.  Mr.  McKinley's 
associates  on  that  committee  were  as  follows:  Burrows,  Michigan;  Dingley 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Maine;  Payne,  New  York;  Bajme,  Pennsylvania;  McKenna,  California; 
La  Follette,  Wisconsin;  Gear,  Iowa;  Carlisle,  Kentucky;  Mills,  Texas; 
Breckinridge,  Arkansas;  McMillin,  Tennessee;  Flower,  New  York. 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  whole  country  was  represented  from  Maine  to  Cali- 
fornia— from  Michigan  to  Texas.  New  York  as  the  Empire  State  was  rep- 
resented by  one  Republican  and  one  Democrat.  The  Southern  States  had 
four  representatives,  the  Western  States  five,  Pennsylvania  one  and  New 
England  one.  The  committee  met  with  open  doors  and  gave  a  respectful 
hearing  to  all  interests  from  every  part  of  the  country.  Even  importers 
and  representatives  of  British  industries  were  treated  courteously  and  their 
statements  given  consideration.  When  the  bill  reached  the  Senate  it  had 
the  benefit  of  the  revision  of  men  like  Morrill,  the  author  of  the  tariff  of 
1861,  of  John  Sherman  and  John  P.  Jones,  and  of  Nelson  W^.  Aldrich  and 
Mr.  Hiscock,  of  New  York,  all  of  whom  had  had  large  experience  in 
tariff  matters  and  intimate  knowledge  of  the  industries  of  the  country. 

The  bill  became  a  law  October  i,  1S90,  going  into  effect  October  6. 
While  no  tariff  bill  can  be  perfect  or  entirely  acceptable  to  all,  still  the 
McKinley  act  was  the  most  protective  tariff  law  ever  framed.  The  principles 
of  protection  were  kept  paramount  to  everything  else.  There  was  no 
discrimination  as  to  any  section  or  any  class.  Mr.  McKinley  in  his  speech 
in  the  House,  May  7,  1890,  said: 

The  tariff  part  of  the  bill  contemplates  and  proposes  a  complete  revision.  It  not 
only  changes  the  rates  of  duty,  but  modifies  the  general  provisions  of  the  law  relat- 
ing to  the  collection  of  duties.  These  modifications  have  received  the  approval  of 
the  treasury  department  and  are  set  forth  in  detail  in  the  report  of  the  committee, 
and  I  will  not  weary  this  committee  in  restating  them  here.  A  few  of  the  more 
important  changes,  however,  are  deserving  our  attention. 

There  has  been  for  many  years  a  provision  in  the  law  permitting  the  United 
States  to  import  for  its  use  any  article  free  of  duty.  Under  this  provision  gross 
abuses  have  sprung  up,  and  this  exemption  from  duty  granted  the  United  States, 
has  served  as  an  open  doorway  to  frauds  upon  our  revenue  and  unjustifiable  dis- 
criminations against  our  own  producers.  Not  onl}'  has  the  government  imported 
supplies  from  abroad,  but  its  officers,  agents  and  contractors  have  been  held  to  enjoy 
the  .same  privilege,  which  has  been  exercised  to  the  injury  of  our  own  citizens.  The 
result  has  been  that  the  supplies  imported  by  contractors  for  governmental  work 
have,  in  many  instances,  been  in  excess  of  the  demand  for  such  public  work  and 
have  been  applied  to  other  and  different  uses.  This  provision  of  law  has  been 
eliminated  in  the  proposed  revision.  Your  committee  have  been  actuated  in  this 
by  the  belief  that  the  government  should  buy  what  it  needs  at  home;  should  give 
its  own  citizens  the  advantage  of  supplying  the  United  States  with  all  of  its  needed 
supplies,  and  that  the  laws  which  it  imposes  upon  its  own  people  and  taxpayers 
should  be  binding  upon  the  government  itself. 

The  committee  have  also  fixed  a  limit  upon  the  amount  and  value  of  personal 
effects  accompanying  the  passenger  returning  from  foreign  travel  to  J500.  It  has 
been  too  common  for  citizens  of  the  United  States  visiting  other  countries  to  supply 
themselves  not  only  for  their  immediate  uses,  but  for  future  uses  and  for  the  uses 
of  their  friends,  and  there  has  heretofore  been  no  limit  to  the  amount  and  value  of 
foreign    articles  which  could    be   brought  in  free  of    duly  under  the    designation  of 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION. 


"personal  effects"  if  accompanied  by  the  returning  passenger.  The  practical  effect 
of  this  provision  was  that  the  wealthy  classes  who  were  able  to  visit  distant  countries 
secured  exemption  from  the  payment  of  duties,  while  the  average  citizen  unable  to 
go  abroad  was  compelled  to  pay  a  duty  upon  the  articles  which  he  might  want  to 
use.     The  limit  of  fcoo  is  believed  to  be  sufficient  for  all  honest  purposes. 

We  have  also  introduced  a  new  provision  in  the  bill  which  requires  that  foreign 
merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States  shall  be  plainly  stamped  with  the  name 
of  the  country  in  which  such  articles  are  manufactured.  There  has  been  a  custom 
too  general  in  some  foreign  countries  to  adopt  American  brands  to  the  injur>-  of 
our  own  manufacturers.  Well-known  articles  of  American  production  with  high 
reputation  have  been  copied  by  the  foreigner  and  then  by  the  addition  of  the 
American  brand  or  American  marks  have  fraudulently  displaced  American  manu- 
facture, not  in  fair  competition,  but  under  false  pretences.  The  counterfeit  has 
taken  the  place  of  the  genuine  article,  and  this  we  propose  to  stop.  England  has 
felt  the  injustice  of  fraudulent  marking,  and  stringent  laws  have  been  enacted  to 
provide  against  false  indications  of  origin  abroad. 

Section  49  of  the  bill  provides  that  goods,  wares  and  merchandise  and  all  arti- 
cles manufactured  in  whole  or  in  part  in  any  foreign  country  by  convict  labor  shall 
not  be  entitled  to  entry  at  any  of  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  and  the  importa- 
tion thereof  is  prohibited.  Nearly,  if  not  all,  of  the.States  of  the  Union  have  laws 
to  prevent  the  products  of  convict  labor  in  the  state  penitentiaries  from  coming  into 
competition  with  the  products  of  the  free  labor  of  such  States.  The  committee 
believed  that  the  free  labor  of  this  country  should  be  saved  from  the  convict  labor 
of  other  countries,  as  it  has  been  from  the  convict  labor  of  our  own  States,  and  so 
recommended  this  provision.  It  will  be  of  small  account  to  protect  our  workmen 
against  our  own  convict  labor  and  still  admit  the  convict-made  products  of  the  world 
to  free  competition  with  our  free  labor. 

By  way  of  encouraging  exportation  to  other  countries  and  extending  our  markets, 
the  committee  have  liberalized  the  drawbacks  given  upon  articles  or  products 
imported  from  abroad  and  used  in  manufactures  here  for  the  export  trade.  Exist- 
ing law  refunds  90  per  cent  of  the  duties  collected  upon  foreign  materials  made 
into  the  finished  product  at  home  and  exported  abroad,  while  the  proposed  bill  will 
refund  99  per  cent  of  said  duties  giving  to  our  citizens  engaged  in  this  business  9 
per  cent  additional  encouragement,  the  government  only  retaining  i  per  cent  for 
the  expense  of  handling.  We  have  also  extended  the  drawback  provision  to  apply 
to  all  articles  imported  which  may  be  finished  here  for  use  in  the  foreign  market. 
Heretofore  this  privilege  was  limited.  This,  it  is  believed,  will  effectually  dispose 
of  the  argument  so  often  made  that  our  tariff  on  raw  materials,  so  called,  confines 
our  own  producers  to  their  own  market  and  prevents  them  from  entering  the  foreign 
market,  and  will  furnish  every  opportunity  to  those  of  our  citizens  desiring  it  to 
engage  in  the  foreign  trade.  Now,  the  bill  proposes  that  the  American  citize; 
may  import  any  product  he  desires,  manufacture  it  into  the  finished  article,  using 
in  part,  if  necessary,  in  such  manufacture,  domestic  materials,  and  when  the  com 
pleted  product  is  entered  for  export,  refunds  to  him  all  but  i  per  cent  of  all  the  dut 
he  paid  upon  his  imported  materials.  That  is,  we  give  to  the  capital  and  labor  of 
this  country  substantially  free  trade  in  all  foreign  materials  for  use  in  the  markets 
of  the  world.  We  do  not  require  that  the  product  shall  be  made  wholly  of  the 
foreign  material.  Already,  under  special  provisions  of  laws  and  regulations  of 
the  treasury  department,  parts  of  a  finished  product  made  here  and  attached  to  the 
finished  article  do  not  deprive  the  exporter  of  his  drawback.  We  have  extended 
this  provision  and  in  every  way  possible  liberalized  it,  so  that  the  domestic  and 
foreign  product  can  be  combined  and  still  allow  to  the  exporter  99  per  cent  upon 
the  duty  he  pays  upon  his  foreign  material  intended  for  export ;  which  is,  in  effect, 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


what  free  traders  and  our  political  oppouents  are  clamoring  for — namely, 
free  raw  material  for  the  foreign  trade.  And  if  you  are  desirous  of  seeing 
what  you  can  do  in  the  way  of  entering  the  foreign  market,  here  is  the  opportunity 

for  you. 

'  Eighteen  articles  were  taken  from  the  free  list  and  made  dutiable, 
while  forty-four  articles  were  transferred  from  the  dutiable  to  the  free  list, 
making  288  articles  altogether  that  came  in  free.  Not  only  that,  but  it 
was  found  that  under  the  actual  workings  of  the  law  over  50  per  cent  of 
our  imports  bore  no  &aX.y.  This  was  thoroughly  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  a  protective  tariff,  that  any  article  which  we  do  not  and 
cannot  produce  with  profit  in  this  country  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
luxuries,  the  dutj^  on  which  serves  for  revenue  and  is  in  no  way  burden- 
some, shall  come  in  absolutely  free. 

We  were,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill,  producing 
about  one-eighth  of  the  sugar  we  consumed.  To  be  exact,  during  the 
year  1890  we  consumed  1,578,478  tons,  of  which  1,357,704  tons  were 
imported,  paying  a  duty  of  $53,985-874-  This  $53,000,000  came  out  of 
the  pockets  of  the  people,  who  were  saved  this  whole  amount  by  the  re- 
moval of  the  duty.  But  the  sugar  industry  of  the  country  was  not  to  be 
abandoned.  We  were  producing  one-eighth  of  our  consumption  and  with 
encouragement  and  protection  would  in  another  decade  produce  at  least 
one-half  our  needs,  in  fact  many  experts  estimate  that  in  twenty  j-ears  at 
the  longest  we  could  produce  our  total  consumption,  amounting  then 
probably  to  6,000,000,000  pounds.  It  was  not  an  industry,  however,  to 
be  built  up  in  a  day  or  a  year,  although  it  was  show-h  to  be  capable  of 
wonderful  development  in  a  number  of  years.  $50,000,000  to  $60,000,000 
was,  however,  too  great  a  sum  to  be  annually  drawn  from  the  purses  of  the 
people  for  this  purpose.  Accordingly  a  bounty  of  one  and  three-quarter 
cents  and  two  cents  per  pound  were  given  to  the  producers  of  sugar  from 
beets,  sorghum  or  cane  grown  in  the  United  States.  Again  had  the  prin- 
ciples of  protection  triumphed.  The  producer  of  an  American  product 
only  partlj'  developed  received  ample  protection  without  directly  taxing 
the  consumer. 

We  were  following  in  the  footsteps  of  other  nations,  such  as 
Germany,  France,  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  Holland,  Russia,  Italy 
and  Spain,  all  of  which  had  built  up  and  were  maintaining  their  sugnr 
industry  by  bounties,  excise  or  export  laws.  The  effect  of  this  portion  of 
the  bill  was  a  thorough  vindication  of  the  policy  adopted.  Our  consump- 
tion increased  from  1,500,000  tons  in  1890  to  nearly  1,900,000  tons  in 
1S91.  The  consumption  was  about  the  same  in  1892  and  1893.  The 
difference  in  price  enabled  the  people  to  save  over  $100,000,000  annually 
in  spite  of  the  increased  consumption.  And  to  do  this  the  government 
paid  a  bounty  of  $7,330,044  the  fir.st  year.  Rut  the  .saving  to  the  ]ieo]ik- 
was  not  all.     Over  $20,000,000  capital   was  put  into  new  establishments. 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   ISGO  TO  1S90. 


giving  employment  and  wages  to  thousands  of  men,  with  the  following 

result: 

1S90.  1893. 

Tons,  Tons. 

Production  of  cane  sugar, 134.844         270,000 

"  beet  sugar, 2,Soo  24,500 

To  sum  up:  The  abolishment  of  the  duty  on  sugar  and  the  giving  of 
a  bounty  .instead,  reduced  the  revenue  about  $60,000,000  annually.  It 
saved  this  amount  to  the  people  besides  saving  over  $100,000,000  annually 
in  price.  It  gave  employment  and  wages  to  thousands  of  people,  enabling 
them  to  double  our  production  in  two  years,  and  the  total  cost  was  less 
than  $10,000,000  annually,  which  was  no  loss,  as  it  all  went  into  the 
pockets  of  our  own  people. 

Perhaps  there  was  no  paragraph  of  the  McKinley  bill  which  met  with 
greater  opposition  from  the  free  traders  than  the  paragraph  which  levied 
an  increased  duty  on  tin  plate.  In  1864  a  duty  of  two  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound  was  fixed  on  tin  plate  in  the  following  words  : 

' '  On  tin  plate,  and  iron  galvanized  or  coated  with  a7iy  metal  by  electric 
batteries  or  otherzvise,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  po^md.'" 

\  This  clause  covered  tin  plates,  terne  plates  and  galvanized  and 
enameled  plates,  the  latter  being  unimportant  manufactures,  of  which  tin 
is  not  a  part.  Had  this  duty  remained  in  force  it  would  have  made  a  dif- 
ference of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  to  the  American  laborer  and 
consumers  of  tin  plate  in  this  couutr}\  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
however,  Mr.  William  Pitt  Fessenden,  acting  under  a  power  vested  in 
him,  rendered  a  decision  which  practically  nullified  the  law.  On  July  22, 
1864,  Mr.  Fessenden  wrote  to  Hiram  Barney,  Collector  of  the  Port  of  New 
York,  as  follows: 

It  would  appear  that  an  error  of  punctuation  was  made  by  some  one;  most  prob- 
ably a  clerk  who  engrosssed  that  part  of  the  act.  If  the  comma  which  is  inserted 
after  the  word  "plate"  be  omitted,  and  a  comma  be  placed  after  the  word  "iron," 
the  true  sense  will  be  had,  which  unquestionably  is,  that  tin  plates,  as  well  as  iron, 
must  be  galvanized  or  coated  with  any  metal  by  electric  batteries  or  otherwise,  in 
order  to  bring  them  within  the  provision. 

There  was  another  clause  in  the  tariff  law,  which  read : 
"  Tin  in    sheets  or  plates,   terne    and    taggers'   tin,  25  per   cent  ad 
valorem.'''' 

The  consequence  was  that  tin  plate  was  made  subject  to  a  duty  of 
25  per  cent  ad  valorem  instead  of  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 
The  latter  duty  would  have  protected  and  developed  the  tin  plate  industry 
in  this  country;  the  former  did  not,  and  the  attempt  to  manufacture  it  was 
a  failure.  In  1873,  however,  there  were  four  tin  mills  started  here  and  tin 
plate  as  good  in  every  respect  as  that  imported  was  made — and  at  a  lower 


TARIFF  qVICSriOX  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


price  than  the  foreign,  namely,  $ii  per  box.  But  as  soon  as  the  English- 
men heard  of  it  what  did  the}^  do?  Just  what  they  have  always  done  and 
what  they  always  \<'ill  do  when  they  find  us  unprotected.  First  the>- 
reduced  their  prices  lower  and  lower  until  they  went  to  less  than  $5  per  box. 
By  this  time  our  manufacturers  could  no  longer  compete  and  were  forced  to 
stop  manufacturing.  Just  as  soon  as  this  was  accomplished  up  went 
the  English  prices  again  and  for  nearly  twenty  years  we  were  at  their 
mercy.  The  total  quantity  of  tin  plates  imported  in  the  twentj'  years  from 
1871  to  1891  was  3,622,750  gross  tons,  the  foreign  value  being  $307,- 
341,404.  In  addition  to  this  we  paid  freights  and  importers'  profits.  But 
for  that  decision  of  Mr.  Fessenden  all  those  millions  and  doubtless 
many  more  would  have  gone  into  the  pockets  of  the  American  people. 
There  is  no  better  example  of  the  cut-throat  methods  of  English  manufac- 
turers than  in  this  tin  plate  history.  They  could  well  let  us  have  their  tin 
plates  for  a  year  or  two  at  cost  and  then  as  soon  as  our  own  industry-  was 
ruined  and  our  market  gained  make  us  pay  year  after  year  double  price  as 
they  did  compel  us  to  do. 

But  the  McKinley  bill  finally  came  to  the  rescue.  A  duty  of  1.85 
and  2.2  cents  per  pound  varying  according  to  gauge  was  imposed  and  so 
confident  were  the  framers  of  the  bill  that  American  manufactures  would 
at  once  be  established  that  a  clause  was  inserted  providing  that  if  in  six 
years  we  did  not  make  at  least  one-fourth  our  consumption  of  tin  and  terne 
plates,  lighter  in  weight  than  sixty-three  pounds  per  hundred  square  feet, 
they  should  be  admitted  free.     What  was  the  result  ?    First  as  to  imports: 


Imports  of  Tin  Plates. 


Fiscal  Ye, 
189I, 
1894, 


Pomuls. 
,036,489,074 
454,160,826 


Value. 
$35,746,920 
11.969,51s 


It  must  be  remembered  that  the  tin  plate  clause  of  the  McKinley  bill 
did  not  go  into  effect  till  July  i,  1891.  Now  what  have  we  accomplished  ? 
The  following  is  from  the  report  of  the  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the 
Tinned  Plate  Manufacturers'  Association  of  the  United  States,  for  1S95: 

We  have  now  in  this  country,  completed  and  in  course  of  construction,  thirty- 
four  tin  plate  works.  These  works  have  a  total  of  one  hundred  and  seventy-seven 
hot  fini.shing  mills,  all  of  which  will  be  completed  and  in  operation  by  the  month 
of  June  next.  The  capacity  of  these  mills  will  exceed  an  annual  production  of 
260,000  tons  of  finished  product,  and  \\\\\  furnish  employment  to  11,000  or  12,000 
hands.  In  looking  over  the  returns  we  have  at  hand  I  find  that  there  are  one  hun- 
dred and  eight  finishing  mills  completed  and  in  operation  at  the  present  time. 
These,  as  you  will  perceive,  have  a  capacity  of  a  little  over  160,000  tons  of  finished 
product  per  annum,  give  employment  to  7000  or  8000  hands,  capital  invested  about 
fo,  500, 000  and  wages  paid  about  14,500,000,  if  the  mills  are  operated  full  time — 
that  is  to  say,  about  forty-five  weeks  in  the  year.  The  tin  plate  clause  of  the  McKin- 
ley bill  wont  into  effect  on  July  i,  1S91.  In  less  than  a  period  of  four  years  the 
American  tin  plate  industry  has  so  developed  as  to  more  than  meet  the  requirements 


I 


PEOTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,  1860  TO  1S90. 


of  the  home  market.  Such  growth  is  unparalleled.  No  other  industrj',  even  with 
the  stimulus  of  highest  protective  duties,  has  ever  made  such  progress  in  the  same 
period  of  time.  It  may  be  interesting  to  all  concerned  to  know  that  the  tin  plate 
works  in  England  and  Wales  have  an  aggregate  of  five  hundred  and  nineteen 
mills.  Of  this  number  two  hundred  and  thirty-two  mills  were  idle  during  the 
year  1S94. 

This  has  been  done  with  no  material  increase  in  price,  so  that  the 
consumer  has  not  suffered  in  the  least.  Not  only  have  many  thousands 
been  given  direct  employment  with  American  wages,  but  thousands  more 
have  been  employed  in  allied  and  kindred  industries.  The  carpenter  who 
builds  the  mill  benefits  as  does  the  workman  within  the  mill.  The  brake- 
man  on  the  railroad  engaged  in  transportation,  shares  the  fruits  of  manu- 
facture with  the  worker  on  the  product  itself. 

Mr.  W.  C.  Cronmeyer,  a  competent  authority,  made  the  following 
estimate  of  the  number  of  persons  that  would  be  given  employment  in  the 
production  of  the  tin  plate  necessary  to  supply  the  present  demand  of  the 
American  people: 

Material  required  to  produce  the  350,000  tons  Persons  required  to 
tin  plate,  of  terne  plate,  taggers'  tin  and  produce  such  ma- 
taggers'  iron  annually  imported.  tenal  in  one  year. 

2,000,000  tons  of  coke  and  coal, 2,000  men. 

1,000,000  tons  of  iron  ore 1,200 

450,000  tons  of  pig  iron, 4.50° 

iS.oootonsof  Dakota  block  tin, S.ooo     " 


3000  tons  of  lead,      ' 

6500  tons  of  tallow  or  palm  oil, 

20,000  tons  of  sulphuric  acid, 

30,000,000  feet  of  box  lumber, 

To  turn  pig  iron  into  fine  sheet  iron,  50  men  to  every  1000  tons,  .  .  . 
To  turn  fine  sheet  iron  into  tin  plate,  terne  plates,  etc.,  to  every  1000 

tons  five  women 

To  every  1000  tons  seven  men, 

To  keep  machinery  in  repair  and  produce  packing,  lubricating  oils 

and  mill  supplies, 

Railroad  carriage  to  transport  these  materials  from  place  to  place, 


300 
750 
750 


1,750  wo 
2,450  me 


2,000 
1,000 


Total, 


39,800 


These  men  so  employed  will  in  turn  again  give  employment  to  preachers, 
teachers,  lawyers,  farmers,  physicians,  butchers,  grocers,  shoemakers,  tailors  and 
dressmakers,  carpenters,  masons,  state,  county  and  municipal  employees. 

These  people  will  provide  a  livelihood  for  about  240,000  people,  these 
240,000  people  thus  employed,  being  4-10  per  cent  of  the  present  popula- 
tion of  the  United  States. 

When  Mr.  Lascelles  Carr,  editor  of  the  Cardiff,  Wales,  Western 
Mail,  visited  Washington  in  1893,  he  was  introduced  to  President  Cleve- 
land. One  of  the  newspaper  correspondents  accompanying  the  party 
facetiously  remarked  to  the  President  t^t  Mr.  Carr  had  come  from  Wales 


TARIFF  qUESriON  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


to  look  for  some  tin  plate  works  which  the  Republican  party  had  estab- 
lished, whereupon  Mr.  Cleveland  made  the  following  reply  : 

"  Well,  Mr.  Carr,  when  you  do  find  them  be  sure  and  let  me  know 
their  exact  locality  for  we  have  been  searching  for  these  tin  plate  works 
for  some  years  and  have  failed  to  find  them." 

Perhaps  the  rank  and  file  of  free  trade  orators  and  editors  can  hardly 
be  blamed  for  their  wholesale  misrepresentation  about  tin  plate  when  the 
head  of  the  firm,  the  great  leader,  the  "savior"  of  free  trade  in  this 
couutrj^  weighted  down  with  the  mantle  of  Cobden,  could  sneeringly 
make  such  a  statement  when  more  than  a  score  of  works  and  more  than  a 
hundred  mills  were  even  then  turning  out  thousands  of  boxes  daily, 
when  on  thousands  of  roofs  tinsmiths  were  nailing  American-made  terne 
plate,  when  tons  of  fruit  and  berries  were  being  preserved  in  cans  made 
irom  American  tin  plate,  and  thousands  of  laborers  were  daily  carrying 
to  their  work  dinner  pails  made  of  American  tin  plate. 

If  James  G.  Blaine  had  left  no  other  legacy  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  the  reciprocity  clause  of  the  McKinley  bill  alone  would  have  left  us 
forever  in  his  debt.  No  sooner  did  he  become  Secretary  of  State  than  he 
began  to  think  of  closer  commercial  union  with  the  countries  south  of  us 
and  his  scheme  of  a  Pan-American  union  became  a  reality  and  a  success. 
Mr.  Blaine  found  that  87  per  cent  of  the  importations  into  the  United 
States  from  Central  and  South  American  States  were  free  of  duty,  while 
nearly  every  class  of  articles  forming  the  total  of  our  exports  to  those  States 
was  subject  to  high  duties  on  entering  their  ports,  and  besides,  that  many 
of  the  articles  sent  from  those  states  to  this  country,  and  entered  here  free, 
were  subject  to  heavy  export  duties  at  home.  He  recommended  the 
so-called  reciprocity  amendment  to  the  McKinley  bill.  It  was  an  innova- 
tion and  produced  no  little  controversy.  Senator  Mitchell,  of  Oregon, 
was  the  first  to  advocate  it  and  he  was  soon  followed  by  all  the  Republican 
Senators.  The  New  York  Produce  Exchange  held  a  meeting  and  passed 
resolutions  in  favor  of  the  scheme,  which  action  was  followed  by  nearly 
all  the  commercial  bodies  in  the  country.  Public  sentiment  was  strongly 
in  favor  of  it,  all  opposition  of  Republican  members  of  Congress  soon 
vanished  and  the  following  paragraph  was  made  a  part  of  the  McKinley 
law  : 

Section  3.  That  with  a  view  to  secure  reciprocal  trade  with  countries  producing 
the  following  articles,  and  for  this  purpose,  on  and  after  the  first  day  of  January, 
1S92,  whenever  and  so  often  as  the  President  shall  be  satisfied  that  the  government 
of  any  country  producing  and  exporting  sugars,  molasses,  coffee,  tea,  and  hides, 
raw  and  uncured,  or  any  of  such  articles,  imposes  duties  or  other  exactions  upou 
the  agricultural  or  other  products  of  the  United  States,  which  in  view  of  the  free 
introduction  of  such  sugar,  molasses,  coflfee,  tea,  and  hides  into  the  United  States 
he  may  deem  to  be  recijjrocally  unetjual  and  unreasonable,  he  shall  have  the  power 
and  it  .shall  be  his  duty  to  suspend,  by  proclamation  to  that  effect,  the  provisions 
of  this-  act  relating  to  the  free  introduction  of  such  sugar,  molasses,  coffee,  tea,  and 


PR  0  TECTI VE  LEGISLA  TION, 


hides,  the  production  of  such  country,  for  such  time  as  he  shall  deem  just,  and  in 
such  case  and  during  such  suspension  duties  shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid 
upon  sugar,  molasses,  coffee,  tea  and  hides,  the  product  of  or  exported  from  such 
designated  country  as  follows,  namely : 

All  sugars  not  above  number  thirteen,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  shall  pay  duty 
on  their  polariscopic  tests  as  follows,  namely : 

All  sugars  not  above  number  thirteen,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  all  tank  bottoms, 
syrups  of  cane  juice  or  of  beet  juice,  melada,  concentrated  melada,  concrete  and 
concentrated  molasses,  testing  by  the  polariscope  not  above  seventy-five  degrees, 
seven-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  and  for  every  additional  degree  or  fraction  of 
a  degree  shown  by  the  polariscopic  test,  two  hundredths  of  one  cent  per  pound 
additional. 

All  sugars  above  number  thirteen,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  shall  be  classified 
by  the  Dutch  standard  of  color,  and  pay  duty  as  follows,  namely :  All  sugar  above 
number  thirteen  and  not  above  number  sixteen,  Dutch  standard  of  color,  one  and 
three-eighths  cents  per  pound. 

All  sugars  above  number  sixteen  and  not  above  number  twenty,  Dutch  standard 
of  color,  one  and  five-eighths  cents  per  pound. 

All  sugars  above  number  twent}',  Dutch  standard  of  color,  two  cents  per  pound. 

Molasses  testing  above  fifty-six  degrees,  four  cents  per  gallon. 

Sugar  drainingsand  sugar  sweepings  shall  be  subject  to  duty  either  as  molasses 
or  sugar,  as  the  case  may  be,  according  to  polariscopic  test. 

On  coffee,  three  cents  per  pound. 

On  tea,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Hides,  raw  or  uncured,  whether  dry,  salted,  or  pickled.  Angora  goat-skins, 
raw,  without  the  wool,  unmanufactured,  asses'  skins,  raw  or  unmanufactured,  and 
skins,  except  sheep-skins,  with  the  wool  on,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Immediately  upon  the  passage  of  the  tariff  bill  negotiations  were 
entered  into  with  the  governments  of  Central  and  South  America  and  with 
Germany  and  France  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  commercial  treaties  in 
accordance  with  its  provisions.  On  June  27,  1892,  the  President  of  the 
United  States  sent  to  the  Senate  a  message  containing  the  following  state- 
ment of  the  treaties  which  had  been  signed  and  those  which  had  been 
agreed  upon  but  not  fully  ratified: 

These  agreements,  so  far  as  proclaimed,  are  as  follows : 

1.  With  the  United  States  of  Brazil,  concluded  January  31,  proclaimed  Febru- 
ary 5,  went  into  effect  April  i,   1891. 

2.  With  Spain  for  the  colonies  Cuba  and  Puerto  Rico,  concluded  June  16,  pro- 
claimed August  I,  and  went  into  effect  September  i,   1891. 

3.  With  Santo  Domingo,  concluded  June  4,  proclaimed  August  i,  went  into 
effect  September  1,   1891. 

4.  With  the  German  Empire,  concluded  January  30,  proclaimed  February  i, 
went  into  effect  February  i,   1892. 

5.  With  the  Republic  of  Salvador,  concluded  December  30,  proclaimed  Decem- 
ber 31,  1891,  and  went  into  effect  February  i,  1892. 

6.  With  the  British  West  India  Colonies,  including  Trinidad,  Barbados,  the 
Leeward  Islands,  the  Windward  Islands,  British  Guiana,  Jamaica  and  their  depen- 
dencies, concluded  February  i,  proclaimed  February  i,  and  went  into  effect  Febru- 
ary I,  1892. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


7.  With  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua,  concUided  March  ii,  proclaimed  March  12, 
and  weut  into  effect  March  12,   1S92. 

S.   With  the  Republic  of   Guatemala,  concluded  December  30,  proclaimed  Slay 
went  into  efEect  May  30,  1892. 

9.  With  the  Republic  of  Costa  Rica,  still  pending  ratification  by  the  Congress 
of  the  Republic. 

10.  With  the  Republic  of  Honduras,  concluded  April  29,  proclaimed  April  30, 
went  into  effect  May  25,   1S92. 

11.  With  France  and  her  colonies,  still  pending  ratification  by  French  Chamber. 

12.  With  Austria-Hungary,  concluded  May  25,  proclaimed  May  25,  went  into 
effect  May  26,   1S92. 

This  was  a  practical  and  definite  step  taken  toward  the  extension  of 
our  foreign  trade.  By  admitting  free  of  dutj'  sugar,  tea,  coffee,  hides, 
rtibber,  dj'ewoods  and  tropical  fruits  from  these  countries,  while  we  would 
not  injure  a  home  industry  we  would  force  them  to  admit  our  produce 
upon  favorable  terms.  By  the  concessions  gained,  France  and  Germany 
were  compelled  to  withdraw  discriminations  against  our  pork,  and  the 
South  American  countries  placed  many  of  our  commodities  on  the  free 
list  and  reduced  duties  on  many  others  25  and  50  per  cent.  The  treaties 
made  with  the  ten  countries  in  the  Western  Hemisphere  secured  favorable 
concessions  on  over  two  thousand  diff'erent  articles. 

The  distribution  of  our  foreign  trade  in  1892  is  exhibited  by  the 
table  on  the  next  page. 

It  will  be  obsen^ed  that  the  total  balance  of  trade  in  our  favor  was 
$202,875,686.  That  this  was  made  up  of  favorable  balances  with  all 
countries  of  Europe,  excepting  Italy  ;  while  the  balance  of  trade  was 
against  us,  with  the  British  North  American  possessions  and  all  Central  and 
South  American  countries,  amounting  to  over  $117, 000, 000.  The  excess  of 
goods  purchased  from  South  America  was  paid  for  in  cash  or  its  equiva- 
lent, which  was  sent  to  Europe  by  these  people  to  purchase  manufactured 
articles. 

Take  the  trade  of  one  country  with  Great  Britain  and  we  find 
that  England  increased  her  exports  to  Brazil  from  $18,691,759  in  1S59  to 
$35,212,000  in  1889;  while  the  exports  from  the  United  States  to  that 
country  were  only  $6,018,901  in  1859,  $7,137,000  in  1888,  and  $11,- 
972,214  in  1890,  Similar  figures  might  be  given  for  other  countries.  It 
is  sufficient,  however,  to  state  that  if  there  is  any  part  of  the  globe  in 
which  American  manufacturers  are  able  to  compete  with  Europe  in  any 
line  of  production,  such  as  coarse  cotton  goods,  farming  implements,  hard- 
ware, tools,  etc.,  it  is  in  South  America.  While  the  establishment  of 
trade  relations  in  foreign  countries  cannot  be  effected  in  a  day,  and  an 
increased  trade,  even  under  favorable  conditions,  must  be  of  slow  growth, 
yet  the  results  which  immediately  followed  the  signing  of  these  treaties 
attested  their  benefit  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  proved  the 
wisdom  of  the  policy. 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,  1S60  TO  1890. 


^ 

If 

l!ll!l!M?P^S 

Si  slrg^s^t^ 

1 

Distribu- 

1 

1 

tion  of 
foreign 
trade  of  the 
United 
Stales. 

i 

+++++ 1+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 

+111111' 

+ 

1 

1 

?H8^tlKSI$t|g^ 

o| 

l^ll^U 

2 

h 

tmimttnu 

i\ 

:;>SK?  ^^2^ 

i 

ag. 

4 

S?^  K  F!,  R  fi  - 

VO_ 

"^ 

r§ 

^^§?^ti>ii%i.^-i^i 

io 

4K£^^^2- 

^ 

^ 

^"" 

--i 

NN    « 

» 

•> 

& 

^1  ** 

«. 

1 

ggg^s^^^g^l^B-s? 

i'l  f^g&^g'l 

T 

1 

8^^K|ij^?|||Rg| 

s    f?E?^5?;s 

1 

^ 

^-5<§2  2  s;5;-g  g^^g^-;^?^ 

t^  1       -'  ^  O'  d  t^  lO  m' 

tN              t>  t^  toco    CS 

^ 

-    -| 

^J4S"- 

s. 

"^ 

PI=«Hlg*8s;5§:l 

^;'  &-:^^Hi 

^ 

s 

lo  -  vo  ip  t^  1--  lo  "-.X  "  t-^  -4  c  lo  1 

<5; 

s 

p.s=^Tr^^roE8.Tg,g^s>£-^cg  1 

fH 

|S^^=^5i5^«i^'^'^5 

c.     d  i/S  CO  cS  i/5  u^ 

6 

^ 

^        lo  o  m  "  ■- 

fn 

^5 

1 

lll*^- 

iPl^^lts^^^Hl 

5'i  tsusn 

^ 

o" 

m 

^sb 

"n 

■c 

bo 

rZoo'^^r^iot-^r^-            Miol 

•S\     ^rT  ^a.  tCvo  M- 

■^ 
« 

1, 

a 

w 

•2 

S 

T? 

•S 

1 

IsH'^f  ^^KR§'52-'S| 

■-■1!      NMNvD^wn 

~ 

s 

. 

oJ       |^|°f^^ 

q 

,s 

mttUMMiu 

'o 

rO;*lCrCr;)^r;r^tC-a^u5c^t^rO 

^ 

0 

°-i,     £^"'""      ^ 

0, 

^ 
« 

«►!] 

*% 

^ 

^ 

§  ■ 

i 

1 

i 

> 

w 

. 

■ 

s 

Q 

Si 

•  t/T 

g; 

C 

g 

i 

(2 

.2 

•  o    ■ 

•  2    • 

^ 

•  >    • 

5 

o 

g 

1 

•1 

■  5  • 

§ 

§ :- : ; : 

■H 

uT 

•    Q    •     ■    •    ■ 

of 

"^ 

< 

a 

"2 

1 

< 

•c 

§ 

S 

i  •  •  •  - 

< 

■  - 

3 

3 

■<3 

z 

c         .    ■  -c 

1 

i 

■  -c 

s 

S    •a 

S: 

§ 

5  >;    „-  s 

1  i  ilj  > 

1  g 

o 

£§ 

1 

1 

ol§z 

1 

Is 

01 

(i 

W^ 

lis 

<! 

< 

1 

TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Our  domestic  exports  to  Cuba  in  18S9  amounted  to  $11,297,198;  in 
1S93  to  $23,604,094.  To  Porto  Rico  the}' increased  from  $2,247,700  in 
1S90  to  $2,808,631  in  1892.  In  1889  our  exports  to  Salvador  amounted  to 
$690,884  in   1892  to  $1,274,021.     Brazil  shows  the   following  increase  : 

1889,  $9,276,511;  1892,  $14,240,019.  Bolivia,  1889,  $6,838;  1893,  $24,849. 
British  Guiana,  1889,  $1,643,249;    1893,  $1,953,012.     British  Honduras, 

1890,  $348,564;  1892,  $464,802.  Mexico,  1889,  $10,886,288;  1893,  $18,- 
891,714.  German)^  1889,  $66,518,695;  1892,  $104, 180,732.  Guatemala, 
1S89,  $969,871;  1892,  $1,809,577.  The  repeal  of  the  reciprocity  clause 
by  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill  has  already,  in  a  single  year,  destroyed  this 
advantage  and  in  many  instances  duties  have  been  again  imposed  on 
goods  imported  from  the  United  States  to  those  countries  with  which 
treaties  had  been  made.  The  loss  is  double,  for  we  not  only  have  the 
burden  of  a  duty  on  sugar,  but  lose  the  markets  of  man}'  countries  as  well. 

These  treaties  were  based  upon  the  true  American  spirit  and  designed 
to  promote  the  welfare  of  our  people  and  the  commercial  greatness  of  our 
country.  The  geographical  situation  and  resources  of  the  West  and  South 
made  this  policy  peculiarly  beneficial  to  those  .sections  of  our  countr}-. 
Such  outlets  would  enlarge  the  market  for  the  manufacturing  which  must 
surely  arise  in  those  localities.  Again,  the  States  bordering  on  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico  would  lie  nearest  and  most  accessible  to  this  market,  and 
through  the  building  of  cotton  mills,  the  development  of  iron  mines,  the 
constructing  of  iron  furnaces,  and  the  extension  of  industries,  which  are 
now  taking  place  in  the  new  South,  they  would  be  furnished  with  a 
more  accessible  market  than  could  be  found  in  any  other  quarter.  Besides, 
it  would  encourage  ship-building  and  the  establishment  of  ship-yards  in 
Mobile,  New  Orleans  and  Galveston.  Neither  the  West  nor  the  South 
could  expect  to  find  a  market  for  their  manufactures  in  Europe.  It 
seems  as  if  this  bill  was  especially  designed  to  benefit  those  sections 
of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  most  astonishing  fact  that  the  representa- 
tives from  the  Western  and  Southern  States  should  have  been  so  blinded 
to  the  future  commercial  welfare  of  their  constituents  as  they  were  when 
they  joined  hands  with  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  free  trade  associates  and 
wiped  this  law  from  the  statute  book.  The  repeal  of  this  law  was 
certainly  an  injury  to  the  trade  of  the  United  States.  To  prevent  at  once 
the  United  States  from  gaining  a  foothold  in  South  and  Central  America, 
would  certainly  confer  a  great  benefit  on  Great  Britain.  During  the 
last  twenty  years  England  has  been  suffering  severely  from  competition  in 
China,  Japan  and  India.  Russia  and  nearly  all  Continental  Europe  are 
not  only  closing  their  ports  again.st  English  goods,  but  are  building  u]> 
industrial  .systems  through  which  they  are  becoming  her  rivals.  Southern 
and  Central  America  during  the  past  twenty  years  have  been  a  fruitful 
field  for  her  commercial  transactions.  Great  Britain  is  guarding  this  trade 
by  all  the  means  at  her  disposal.     To  step  in  and  divide  this  trade  with 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,   ISGO  TO  18f>0. 

her  and  Europe  would  greatly  benefit  American  commerce.  There  has 
been  no  dispute  but  that  the  extension  of  our  trade  in  this  region  could  be 
secured  in  this  way.  If  the  advocates  of  free  trade  were  really  solicitous  of 
the  welfare  of  the  United  States  and  desirous  of  extending  our  markets  in 
foreign  countries,  instead  of  destroying  the  reciprocity  treaties,  they  should 
have  upheld  them.  But  the  dogmatic  free  trader  was  jealous  of  a  policy 
which  was  certain  to  result  in  such  benefits  to  the  country  as  would  prove 
most  damaging  to  his  pet  theories.  To  secure  trade  advantages  in  foreign 
countries  by  this  class  of  treaties  is  not  by  any  means  a  new  device.  It 
was  embraced  in  the  recommendation  of  the  merchants  of  Loudon  in  their 
petition  to  parliament  in  1820.  Failing  to  secure  free  trade  in  France 
Mr.  Cobden  himself  favored  and  negotiated  a  reciprocity  treaty  with 
Napoleon  III.  in  i860. 

Mr.  Althusen,  an  eminent  and  experienced  manufacturer,  in  giving 
evidence  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Depressioti  of  Trade  and 
Industry  in  1S86,  stated  that  he  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
England  made  a  mistake  in  adopting  free  trade  instead  of  resorting  to 
reciprocity  treaties;  that  by  adopting  free  trade  her  ports  were  thrown 
open  to  the  free  admission  of  the  wares  of  other  countries,  and  she  had 
nothing  to  offer  in  return  for  trade  advantages.  Her  bargaining  power 
had  been  thrown  away.  Even  as  late  as  1892  Germany  entered  into 
reciprocity  treaties  with  four  of  the  principal  nations  of  Europe.  Had  the 
advocates  of  free  trade  committed  no  other  act  to  prove  their  hostility  to 
the  commercial  interests  of  the  United  States  the  repeal  of  this  provision 
of  the  McKinley  bill  would  be  sufficient. 

The  effects  of  three  portions  of  the  McKinley  bill  have  been  given 
somewhat  in  detail,  namely,  the  change  from  duty  on  sugar  to  bounties, 
the  imposing  of  an  adequate  tariff  on  tin  plate,  and  reciprocity.  These, 
however,  make  up  only  a  small  portion  of  the  benefits  which  resulted 
from  the  tariff  law  of  1890.  Our  progress  for  the  two  years  following 
that  law  was  unprecedented.  Every  feature  of  the  law  was  fully  vindi- 
cated and  the  wisdom  of  its  framers  proved  beyond  question.  When  the 
measure  was  pending  Senator  Carlisle  declared  that  under  it  our  foreign 
commerce  would  decline,  and  yet  our  foreign  commerce  for  the  year  1891 
was  larger  than  it  had  ever  been  before,  and  it  was  larger  still  in  the  year 
1892.  Our  domestic  exports  for  the  last  named  year  amounted  to 
$1,015,732,011,  against  $730,282,609  in  1889,  and  $278,392,080  in  1859, 
our  last  previous  free  trade  year. 

The  first  object  of  the  bill  was  to  reduce  revenue,  but  without  destroy- 
ing any  protective  feature  of  our  tariff  system.  This  was  done  to 
the  extent  of  about  $42,000,000,  and  for  the  finst  time  in  the  hist6r>'  of 
the  United  States  more  than  half  of  all  our  imports  in  value  were  admitted 
free  of  duty.  While  the  average  rate  per  cent  is  at  best  misleading,  it 
may  as  well  be  stated  in  the  face  of  false  free  trade  calculations,   that  the 


McKinlev 
bill— How 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


average  ad  valorem  rate  per  cent  on  all  imports  for  the  j'ear  1S92  was 
21.26 — less  than  during  anj-  year  since  1861. 

The  second  object  of  the  bill  was  to  develop  and  increase-  American 
industries  and  give  employment  to  a  greater  number  of  American  laborers. 
The  two  years  following  the  enactment  of  the  bill  showed  results  that 
surprised  even  its  most  sanguine  friends.  New  industries  were  established 
on  every  hand;  other  industries  were  imported  from  abroad;  thousands  of 
establishments  were  enlarged,  all  of  which  gave  employment  to  an 
increased  number  of  laborers,  and  in  most  instances  at  higher  wages. 
Millions  of  dollars  worth  of  goods  formerly  imported  were  now  made  by 
American  workmen.  In  woolen  manufactures,  for  instance,  our  consump- 
tion increased  1 7  per  cent  in  three  years,  while  the  value  of  woolen  goods 
imported  decreased  to  the  amount  of  $21,000,000  during  the  same  period. 
The  consumption  of  cotton  in  our  mills  increased  24  per  cent  in  two  years. 
The  production  of  pig  iron  in  1891  for  the  first  time  surpassed  that  of  Great 
Britain.  In  silk  manufacture  there  was  an  increase  of  25  percent  in  1S91 
over  any  preceding  year.  Our  various  industries  will,  however,  be  treated 
more  specifically  in  the  following  pages. 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  the  McKinley  bill  was  framed  with  a  view 
to  benefit  our  manufacturers  and  miU  hands  alone.  The  agricultural  interests 
and  the  American  farmer  received  the  same  attention  and  reaped  the  same 
fruits  as  did  the  manufacturer  and  his  employees.  American  farm  pro- 
ducts received  adequate  protection  in  nearly  every  instance,  with  the  result 
that  in  a  single  year  the  value  of  our  imports  of  farm  products  was  reduced 
by  $20,000,000,  while  our  agricultural  exports  increased  from  $532, 141,490 
in  1889  to  $799,328,232  in  1892,  a  gain  of  $267,186,742.  These  in 
general  were  the  benefits  to  American  labor.  What  advantage  did  the 
American  people  as  consumers  derive  ?  The  answer  has  been  given  in  the 
following  words  of  President  Harrison  in  his  message  to  Congress, 
December,  1891:  "Rarely,  if  ever  before,  in  the  history  of  the  country 
has  there  been  a  time  when  the  proceeds  of  one  day's  labor  or  the 
product  of  one  farmed  acre  would  purchase  so  large  amount  of  those 
things  that  enter  into  the  living  of  the  masses  of  the  people.^'  The 
following  corroborative  testimony  may  be  given  in  the  words  of  Edward 
Atkinson  in  the  Forum  of  May,  1892: 

There  never  has  been  a  period  in  the  history  of  this  or  any  other  country  when 
the  general  rate  of  wages  was  as  high  as  it  is  now,  or  the  prices  of  goods  relatively  to 
the  wages  as  low  as  they  are  to-day,  nor  a  period  when  the  workman,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  has  so  fully  secured  to  his  own  use  and  enjoyment  such  a  steadily 
and  progressively  increasing  proportion  of  a  constantly  increasing  product. 

And  further,  the  following  is  taken  from  the  Weekly  Review  of  Trade, 
published  by  R.  G.  Dun  &  Co.'s  Commercial  Agency,  June  30,  1892; 
' '  A  fiscal  year  never  matched    in  the  whole  history  of  the  country  in 


PROTECTIVE  LEGISLATION,  1S60  TO  1S90. 


volume  of  industrial  production,  in  magnitude  of  domestic  exchanges,  or 
in  foreign  exchange,  has  just  closed." 

If  further  testimon)-  be  desired  it  can  be  found  in  the  following 
extract  from  a  Senate  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  result  of  the 
^IcKinle}'  law  on  prices  and  wages.  The  investigations  were  conducted 
b)-  Carroll  D.  Wright,  Commissioner  of  the  Department  of  L,abor,  Gen- 
eral Francis  A.  Walker,  Professor  H.  C.  Adams,  Edward  Atkinson,  Pro- 
fessor E.  J.  James  and  William  Grosvenor.  Of  these  the  first  is,  if 
possible,  independent  on  the  tariff  question,  the  next  three  are  pronounced 
free  traders,  and  the  last  two  are  protectionists.  The  report,  which  was 
unanimously  accepted  by  a  Senate  Committee  composed  of  both  Repub- 
licans and  Democrats,  stated  that: 

""Duri7ig  the  twenty-eight  tnonths  from  Jime  i,  i88p,  to  September  /, 
iSgr  (the  act  took  effect  October  6,  1S90),  average  retail  prices  of  21^ 
articles  of  common  consumption  among  the  people  declined  .6if.  per  ce7it; 
wholesale  prices  of  the  same  articles  dcclijied  .jj  per  cent;  prices  of  agricul- 
tural prodiicts  advanced  i8.6j  per  cent,  and  7i>ages  advanced  on  the  average 
.75 per  cent." 

The  following  brief  summary  of  the  McKinley  bill  and  its  re.sults  is 
given  by  Mr.  D.  G.  Harriman,  in  his  "  American  Tariffs  from  Plymouth 
Rock  to  McKinley,"  page  73: 

Increased  duties  011  about 115  articles. 

Reduced  duties  on  about, 190  articles. 

And  left  them  unchanged  on, 249  articles. 

Increased  our  foreign  commerce  in  eleven  months, $74,768,639 

Increased  our  free  imports, 112,013,081 

Made  the  percentage  of  free  imports,  of  all  our  imports, 55-75 

Increased  free  imports  over  the  last  tariff,  per  cent, 22.48 

Reduced  the  duties  per  capita  from  J3.80  to  $3.07. 

Reduced  the  total  revenue  ("tariff  taxes")  in  twelve  months,  .    .    .  $41,396,425 

Increased  the  cost  of  no  necessity  of  life  and  reduced  the  cost  of  many ;  stimu- 
lateil  business,  and  thereby  tended  to  make  people  busier  and  earnings  surer,  if  not 
larger. 

Fair  Trade  CEng.)  in  discussing  the  merits  of  the  McKinley  bill 
gave  the  following  four  points  in  its  favor : 

The  manufacturers  of  Great  Britain  don't  like  the  McKinley  tariff  bill. 
The  manufacturers  of  Germany  don't  like  the  McKinley  tariff  bill. 
The  manufacturers  of  France  don't  like  the  McKinley  tariff  bill. 
The  Anglomaniac  Free  Traders  of   the  United  States  don't  like  the  McKinley 
tariff  bill. 

This  furnishes  four  excellent  reasons  why  the  bill  should  become  a  law.' 

The  growth  of  other  industries  and  of  industrial  activity  in  general 
after  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  will  be  further  pointed  out  in  the 

>  Vol.  v.,  p.  413. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


treatment  of   special  iudustries,  and  the  conditions  immediately  preced- 
ing the  passage  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill. 

The  writer  has  compiled  from  the  statutes  of  the  United  States  and 
other  official  sources  the  following  brief  description  of  the  tariff  laws 
of  the  United  States,  from  the  formation  of  the  government  to  the  present 
time: 

AMERICAN   TARIFFS   FROM    I7S9-1S94. 

Dates  of  Passage  and  Operation  ivith  Salient  Features  and  Cor\sequences. 

Act  of  July  4,  1789 — Went  into  effect  August  lo,  17S9.  Duties  imposed  upon  75 
articles,  40  specific — 35  ad  valorem — 15  free.  Average  rate  on  total  imports 
7>^  per  cent. 

August  10,  1790 — Went  into  effect  January  i,  1791.  Imposed  50  new  duties  and 
increased  many  of  previous  year.    Average  rate  on  total  imports  8  per  cent. 

March  3,  1791 — Slight  increase — unimportant — rates  increased  on  spirits.  Average 
rate  on  total  imports  8.43  per  cent. 

May  2,  1792 — Went  into  effect  July  i,  1792.  Over  150  articles  vcere  enumerated  in 
this  bill.  General  increase  of  i]i  per  cent.  Average  rate  on  total  imports 
10.93  psr  cent. 

June  5-7,  1794 — Went  into  effect  July  1,  1794.  Imposed  additional  duties  and  made 
slight  increase  in  many  existing.  Increased  rates  on  tobacco,  snuff  and 
refined  sugar.     Average  rate  on  total  imports  13. 88  per  cent. 

January  29,  1795 — Rates  changed  on  types,  sugar  and  wines.  Man}'  changes,  some 
reductions.  Twenty-five  articles  on  free  list.  Average  rate  on  total  imports 
8.04  per  cent. 

March  3,  July  8,  1797 — Increased  rates  on  sugar,  tea,  molasses,  velvets,  cotton  goods, 
candy.     Average  rate  on  total  imports  9. 25  per  cent. 

March  13,  1800 — Went  into  efEect  July  i,  1800.  Increased  rates  on  sugar  and  wines. 
Average  rate  on  total  imports  13. 11  per  cent. 

March  26,  1S04 — Went  into  effect  July  i,  1S04.  Increased  all  ad  valorem  rates  iVz 
per  cent.  Increased  rates  on  goods  in  foreign  vessels  10  per  cent.  Addi- 
tional rates  on  many  specific  articles.  Mediterranean  Fund.  Average  rate 
on  total  imports  13.06  per  cent. 

March  3,  1S07;  March  4,  1808 — Salt  and  copper,  saltpetre  and  sulphur  made  free. 
Increased  duties  on  brass,  hats,  iron,  linen,  wines  and  many  other  articles. 
Average  rate  on  total  imports  28.71  per  cent. 

Embargo  Act  passed  in  December,  1807,  prohibiting  all  imports  from  England  and 
France,  repealed  May  15,  iSog — This  was  not  a  tariff  measure,  but  at  the 
same  time  had  the  effect  of  .stimulating  many  industries.  The  people  of 
the  United  States  were  thrown  entirely  upon  their  own  resources  and  the 
result  was  new  industries  established,  and  increased  production  in  existing 
manufactures. 

Act  of  July  I,  1812 — Went  into  effect  same  day.  Known  as  the  war  tariff.  All 
duties  were  doubled.  Supplementary  Acts,  February  25,  1S13;  July  29, 
1813;  March  3,  1815 ;  Februarys,  1816.  Great  activity  in  manufacturing 
due  both  to  high  duties  and  the  war.  Average  rate  on  all  imports  32. 73 
per  cent. 

Act  of  April  27,  1816— Went  into  effect  July  I,  1811.  Known  as  the  Lowndes- 
Calhoun  bill.  War  rates  were  considerably  reduced.  Ad  valorem  duties 
ranged  from  lYz  to  33  per  cent.  Unenumerated  goods  paid  15  per  cent. 
Iron  and  other  metals  15  per  cent.     Woolen  goods  25  per  cent.     Minimum 


PROTECTIVE  LEG  ISOLATION, 


TO  1890. 


principle  adopted.  Intended  as  a  protective  measure  but  failed  because  of 
duties  being  too  low  to  prevent  vast  importations  from  England  at  less  than 
cost  prices.     Average  rate  on  all  imports  26.52  per  cent. 

April  12,   iSiS — Rates  changed  on  iron  and  alum. 

March  3,  1S19 — Rates  on  certain  wines  reduced.  Average  rate  on  all  imports  35.02 
per  cent. 

Act  of  May  22,  1824 — Went  into  effect  July  1,  1824.  Decided  increase  iu  duties  with 
most  significant  and  gratifying  results.  Average  rate  on  all  imports  37  per 
cent. 

Act  of  May  19,  1828 — Went  into  effect  September  2,  1828  and  July  i,  1829,  Known 
as  the  "Tariff  of  Abominations."  Minimum  extended.  Rates  increased. 
Average  rate  on  all  imports  47.  So  per  cent. 

May  20,   1830 — Rates  reduced  on  teas,  coffees  and  cocoa  and  molasses. 

July  14,  1832 — Went  into  effect  March  4,  1833.  Known  as  the  "Modifying  Tariff." 
Duties  on  iron  reduced,  on  woolens  increased. 

Act  of  March  2,  1833 — Went  into  effect  January  i,  1834.  Known  as  the  "Com- 
promise Tariff. "  Rates  reduced  10  per  cent  of  all  duties  in  excess  of  20 
per  cent,  etc.,  each  alternate  year  till  January  i,  1S42,  one-half  the  remain- 
ing excess  of  20  per  cent  to  be  taken  off  on  that  date  and  the  other  half 
July  I,  1842.  L,inens,  worsted  goods,  shawls  and  manufactures  of  silk  made 
free.     Average  rate  on  all  imports  about  17  per  cent. 

July  4,   1836 — Rates  reduced  one-half  on  wines. 

September  11,  1841 — Articles  free  and  those  paying  less  than  20  per  cent  to  pay  20 
per  cent.     Railroad  iron  reduced  to'  20  per  cent. 

Act  of  August  30,  1842 — Took  effect  immediately.  General  revision  and  increase  of 
rates  50  to  75  per  cent.  A  thoroughly  protective  measure.  The  result  was 
a  revival  of  industry  and  trade,  followed  by  general  prosperity. 

Act  of  Juh-  30,  1846 — Went  into  effect  December  i,  1846.  Known  as  the  "Walker 
Tariff. ' '  General  reduction  of  duties.  Changes  from  specific  to  ad  valorem 
rates,  duties  for  revenue  only.  Effects  of  this  tariff  were  most  disastrous 
in  spite  of  foreign  war,  famine  and  the  discovery  of  gold. 

Act  of  March  3,  1857 — Went  into  effect  July  i,  1857.  General  revision  and  further 
reduction  of  duties.  A  culminating  free  trade  act,  resulting  in  panic  and 
commercial  ruin.     The  worst  period  in  the  nation's  history. 

Act  of  March  2,  1S61 — Went  into  effect  April  2,  i86i.  Intended  to  raise  the  neces- 
sary revenue  for  the  government  expenditures. 

August  5,   1861 — First  of  the  war  tariffs,  large  increase  in  duties. 

December  24,  1S61 — Duties  increased  on  sugar,  tea  and  coffee. 

July  14,  i862^Vent  into  effect  August  2,  1862.     Further  increase  of  rates. 

March  3,  1S63;  April  20,  1864;  June  30,  1864;  March  5,  1865;  March  15,  1866  and 
July  28,  1S66 — Bills  changing  and  generally  increasing  duties. 

Act  of  March  2,  1S67 — Took  effect  immediately.  Rates  increased  on  wool  and 
woolens  giving  great  benefit  to  those  industries. 

February  24,   1869 — Rates  increased  on  copper. 

July  14,  December  20,  1870.  —General  changes.  Free  list  largely  reduced.  Duty 
of  I2S  per  ton  on  steel  rails. 

May  I,   1S72 — Tea  and  coffee  made  free. 

June  6,  1S72 — Went  into  effect  August  i,  1872.  Reduction  of  10  per  cent.  Increased 
free  list. 

June  22,  1874 — Revised  statute,  with  slight  and  unimportant  changes. 

February  8,  1875 — Known  as  the  "Little  Tariff  Bill."     General  changes. 

March  3,  i875^Took  effect  immediately.  Rates  increased  on  sugar.  Repeal  of  10 
per  cent  reduction  of  act  of  June  6,  1872. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


July  I,   1879 — Quinine  made  free. 

Juh-  14,   iSSo — A  few  unimportant  changes. 

May  6,  and  December  3,   18S2 — Repeals' discriminating  duty. 

Act  of  March  3,  1883— Went  into  effect  July  i,  1S83.  Known  as  the  Tariff  Commis- 
sion Bill.  General  revision,  reductions  and  increased  free  list.  Severe 
blow  to  wool  industry. 

Act  of  October  i,  1890 — Went  into  effect  October  6,  1S90.  Known  as  the  McKin- 
ley  Bill,  the  most  perfect  tariff  measure  ever  framed.  Changes  from  ad 
valorem  to  specific  rates.  Enlarged  free  list.  Sugar  made  free,  a  bounty 
beiug  substituted.  Reciprocity  law.  Unusual  prosperity  in  all  lines  of 
industry.  More  men  employed  and  at  higher  wages  than  ever  before  iu  the 
history  of  the  nation. 

Act  of  1894 — Went  into  effect  August  27,  1894.  Known  as  the  Gorman-Wilson  Bill. 
Became  a  law  without  the  President's  signature.  General,  reduction  of 
duties.  Wool  put  on  free  list.  Great  falling  off  in  number  of  sheep.  In- 
creased importations  of  competing  commodities  to  the  detriment  of  Ameri- 
can manufacturers.  Great  increase  in  national  debt.  Deficiency  of  revenue. 
Impairment  of  gold  reser\-e,  necessitating  repeated  bond  issues.  Decline 
in  foreign  trade.  General  depression  in  business  throughout  the  entire 
country. 

A  most  important  act  of  tariif  legislation  was  the  so-called  Administra- 
tive Customs  I^aw  of  1890,  which  went  into  effect  August  i  of  that  year. 
It  was  an  act  to  simplify  the  laws  in  relation  to  the  collection  of  the 
revenues,  and  to  do  away  with  fraud  and  many  underhanded  methods  then 
resorted  to  by  importers. 

The  act  proposed  the  appointment  of  nine  general  appraisers  by  the 
President.  They  were  to  receive  a  salary  of  $7000  yearly,  to  be  under 
the  general  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  not  more  than  five 
were  to  be  appointed  from  the  same  political  party,  and  penalties  were 
imposed  for  briberj'  in  any  form  both  for  giver  and  receiver. 

Thus  have  been  described  the  various  tariffs  of  the  United  States. 
Those  which  gave  protection  gave  also  prosperity.  Those  which  failed  to 
give  protection  brought  disaster.  In  those  tariffs  which  were  protective 
the  rates  were  different,  but  the  results  were  the  same.  They  were  each 
adapted  to  cause  protection  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  at  the  time  the\- 
were  enacted.  At  another  time  each  one  of  them  might  not  be  successful, 
for  changed  conditions  require  different  rates,  and  it  is  the  task  of  practical 
business  men  at  any  time  to  so  adjust  rates  that  they  may  operate  to  make 
secure  the  American  markets  for  the  American  people. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Growth  of  Agriculture,   1850  to  1890. 

The  tariff  history  of  the  United  States,  with  a  general  resumi  of  the 
effect  of  fiscal  legislation,  has  been  given  up  to  1893,  when  our  country 
and  its  industries  reached  the  highest  pinnacle  of  advancement  and 
prosperity. 

Our  principal  industries  will  now  be  taken  up  somewhat  more  in 
detail,  although  only  the  most  essential  features  can  be  touched  upon. 

The  following  statement  from  the  census  of  1890  shows  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  whole  number  of  males  and  females  engaged  in  gainful  occupa- 
tions according  to  the  number  and  percentage  in  each  class  : 


Males. 

Females. 

Total. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Per  cent. 

Number. 

Perc.nt. 

All  occupations,     .... 

18,820,950 

100.00 

3,914,711 

100.00 

22,735,661 1  100.00 

Agi-iculture,  fisheries  and 

mining,             

S.333,692 

44. 28 

679,509 

17-36 

9,013,2011     39.64 

Professional  service,  .    .    . 

632,641 

3-36 

311,682 

7-96 

944,323       4-15 

Domestic     and     personal 

1 

service -    . 

2,692,820 

14-31 

1,667,686     42.60 

4,360,506      19.18 

Trade  and  transportation, 

3,097,653 

16.46 

228,309        5-S3 

3,325,962,     14.63 

Manufacturing    and    me- 

1 

chanical  industries,  .    . 

4,064,144 

21-59 

1,027,525      26.25 

5,091,669:     22.40 

Agriculture  is  the  largest  and  most  important  industry  of  this  countrj', 
and  in  it  are  engaged  more  people  than  in  any  other  one  occupation.  The 
farmer  feeds  not  only  himself  but  all  the  rest  of  the  inhabitants.  Great 
then,  is  his  responsibility  when  he  provides  for  a  people  that  consumes 
more  than  any  other  people  in  the  world. 

There  are  certain  essential  requisites  indispensable  to  the  farmer's 
prosperity.  First,  good  crops;  second,  a  good  market;  third,  reasonable 
prices  for  what  he  has  to  sell  and  buy.  The  American  farmer  is  blessed 
as  is  no  other  tiller  of  the  soil  on  earth,  when  all  is  considered.  Our  soil 
and  climate  give  him  good  crops  in  nearly  all  food  products  consumed  by 
man.  Our  protective  tariff  gives  him  a  substantial  home  market  and  pro- 
fitable prices  for  his  products.  It  is  impossible  to  consider  the  agricul- 
tural progress  of  this  country  without  at  the  same  time  bearing  in.  mind 
our  growth  in  manufactures.  Prosperity  in  the  latter  is  indispensable  to 
42  (657) 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


the  healthy  growth  of  the  former.  It  was  with  this  thought  uppermost 
that  the  founders  of  the  RepubUc  avowed  and  adopted  protection.  Wash- 
ington, Hamilton,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe  and  Adams  all  recognized 
the  importance  of  a  protective  tariff  to  the  farmer,  and  Andrew  Jackson,  in 
a  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman,  of  North  Carolina,  dated  April  26,  1S24,  said: 

I  will  ask  what  is  the  real  situation  of  the  aijriculturist  ?  Where  has  the 
American  farmer  a  market  for  his  surplus  produce?  Except  for  cotton  he  has  neither 
a  foreign  nor  a  home  market.  Does  not  this  clearly  prove,  when  there  is  no  market 
at  home  or  abroad,  that  there  is  too  much  labor  employed  in  agriculture  ?  Common 
sense  at  once  points  out  the  remed)\  Take  from  agriculture  in  the  United  States  .six 
hundred  thousand  men,  women  and  children,  and  you  will  at  once  give  a  market  for 
more  breadstufFs  than  all  Europe  now  furnishes  us.  In  short,  sir,  we  have  been  too 
long  subject  to  the  policy  of  British  merchants,  it  is  time  we  should  become  a  little 
more  Americanized,  and,  instead  of  feeding  the  paupers  and  laborers  of  England, 
feed  our  own  ;  or  else,  in  a  short  time,  by  continuing  our  present  policy,  we  shall  all 
be  rendered  paupers  ourselves. 

This  polic)-  of  Jack.son's  was  pursued  and  has  been  continued  ever 
since,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  free  trade  periods  from  1833  to  1842, 
and  from  1846  to  i860.  A  home  market  of  almo.st  incalculable  magnitude 
has  been  built  up  and  maintained — a  market  greater  by  far  than  all  the 
markets  of  the  world  combined,  and  in  this  market  the  American  farmer 
has  for  a  generation  and  more  sold  over  nine-tenths  of  his  productions. 
Prosperous  though  he  has  been  in  the  enjoyment  of  this  vast  market,  he  has 
suffered  cruelly  from  inadequate  tariffs,  and  has  been  the  special  object  of 
attack  by  Great  Britain  and  her  American  allies.  Not  only  has  the  farmer 
suffered  from  this  cause,  but  he  has  shared  any  misfortune  to  manufacturing 
interests  as  well.  President  Jackson,  in  his  inaugural  address,  March  4, 1829, 
said:  "With  regard  to  a  proper  selection  of  the  subjects  of  impost,  with  a  view 
to  reveime,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  the  spirit  of  equity,  caution  and  com- 
promise, in  which  the  Constitution  was  formed,  requires  that  the  great  inter- 
ests of  agriculture,  commerce  and  manufactures  should  be  equally  favored. ' ' 

This  idea  should  ever  be  borne  in  mind  that  agriculture  and  manufac- 
turing interests  are  inseparably  united,  and  that  the  farmer  needs  protec- 
tion, not  only  for  himself  but  for  his  customers  as  well.  If  any  exception 
can  be  made  to  this  principle  it  is  only  during  a  period  of  war  at  home  or 
abroad — failure  of  crops  or  foreign  famine.  From  such  causes  our 
farmers  have  benefited  more  or  less.  On  the  other  hand,  they  suffered 
much  from  the  ruinous  effects  of  free  trade  periods  preceding  1824  and 
from  1833  to  1842.  Of  the  former  period  Henry  Clay  .said:  "  If  I  were  to 
select  an}'  term  of  seven  years  since  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitu- 
tion which  exhibited  a  scene  of  the  most  %videspread  dismay  and  desola- 
tion, it  would  be  exactly  that  term  of  seven  years  which  immediately 
preceded  the  establishment  of  the  tariff  of  1824." 

Of  the  next  free  trade  period  Col  ton  writes  in  liis  life  of  Henry  Clay, 
Vol.  I: 


GROWTH  OF  AGUICULrUKE,   1S30  TO  1890. 


In  Ohio,  with  all  her  abundance,  it  was  hard  to  get  money  to  pay  taxes.  The 
sheriff  of  Muskingum  County,  as  stated  by  the  Guernsey  Times  in  the  summer  of  1842, 
sold  at  auction  one  four-horse  wagon  at  I5.50;  ten  hogs  at  6%  each;  two  horses  (said  to 
be  worth  I50  to  ^75  each)  at  $2  each  ;  two  cows  at  $1  each;  a  barrel  of  sugar  at  $1.50, 
and  a  store  of  goods  at  that  rate.  In  Pike  County,  Missouri,  as  stated  by  the  Hannibal 
Journal,  the  sheriff  sold  three  horses  at  I1.50  each;  one  large  ox  at  12J/2'  cents;  five  cows, 
two  steers  and  one  calf,  the  lot  at  J3.25  ;  twenty  sheep  at  I3,!<  cents  each;  twentj'-four 
hogs,  the  lot  at  25  cents;  one  eight-day  clock  at  I2.50;  lot  of  tobacco,  seven  or  eight  hogs- 
heads, at  Is;  three  stacks  of  hay,  each  at  25  cents,  and  one  stack  of  fodder  at  25  cents. 

The  tariff  of  1842  came  to  the  re.scue,  and  the  farmer  shared  in  the 
prosperity  of  the  whole  countrJ^ 

The  decline  of  the  English  agriculturist  during  fifty  years  of  free 
trade  has  been  fully  stated  in  previotis  pages.  It  now  remains  to 
give  a  concise  exposition  of  the  progress  of  the  American  farmer  in 
the  same  period,  during  thirty-three  years  of  which  he  has  enjoyed  the 
benefits  of  a  protective  tariff.  Several  causes  conspired  to  give  more  or 
less  prosperity  to  our  agricultural  interests  during  the  years  immediately 
following  the  tariff  of  1846.  Among  them  may  be  mentioned  short 
crops  abroad,  foreign  wars  and  famine,  together  with  the  fact  that  from 
1847  to  1857  we  built  20,000  miles  of  railroads,  bringing  agricultural  and 
manufacturing  sections  together,  thus  giving  the  farmer  constantly 
increasing  markets  and  lessening  the  expense  of  reaching  them.  Another 
catise  of  rapid  progress,  especially  in  the  grain  trade,  was  the  increase  in 
lake  commerce.  In  the  year  1845  the  tonnage  of  the  lakes  consisted  of 
only  380  vessels  of  all  kinds,  with  an  aggregate  tonnage  of  76,000  tons, 
while  in  1863  it  had  increased  to  1870  vessels  and  a  tonnage  of  470,034 
tons.  The  gold  discoveiy  of  1 849  was  another  most  potent  element  acting 
to  the  farmer's  advantage.  The  greatest  factor,  however,  was  the  increase 
in  farm  implements  and  labor-saving  machinery  during  the  decade  from 
1850  to  i860.  The  value  of  labor-saving  implements  in  1850  was 
$6,842,611,  while  in  i860  it  was  $17,590,960,  an  increase  of  156  per  cent. 
This  was  exclusive  of  all  articles  made  on  the  farm,  and  also  excludes 
cotton  gins,  scythes,  hoes,  shovels,  spades,  forks,  and  some  other  articles 
to  the  value  of  $11,796,941,  which  might  appropriately  be  added  to  the 
above,  making  a  total  of  over  $29,000,000  in  i860.  It  will  be  interesting 
to  note  where  this  great  increase  occurred  which  will  be  seen  in  the  fol- 
lowing table,  showing  per  cent  of  increase  in  the  manufacture  of  farm 
labor-saving  implements  and  machinery  from  1850  to  i860: 

Per  cent  increase. 

Middle  States, i34-2 

Western  States 352-5 

Ohio 405-5 

Illinois 212.2 

Iowa 1208.6 

Kentucky 755-4 

Southern  States 3°- 


TARIFF  qUKSTlUN  IN  THE  UNVrE])  STATES. 


•Pyogfess 
ofagriciil- 

1S50  to  1S90. 


While  the  increase  in  Ohio,  as  seen  above,  was  over  400  per  cent,  the 
increase  in  population  was  onlj-  18.14  per  cent.  In  short,  both  foreign  and 
domestic  causes  of  exceptional  character  operated  to  favor  the  American 
agriculturist  during  the  decade  from  1850  to  1S60.  In  fact,  the  whole 
period  from  1842  to  i860  showed  a  general  increase  in  farm  values  and 
more  or  less  prosperitj-  for  the  farmer.  And  yet  after  all  there  were  no 
elements  so  potent  as  the  indomitable  will,  the  unceasing  perseverance,  the 
.strict  economy  and  frugality,  and  the  untiring  labor  of  the  agriculturist 
himself.  He  had  to  contend  against  much;  he  accomplished  much  in 
spite  of  adverse  legislation.  From  Canada  and  Europe  came  millions  of 
dollars  worth  of  products  which  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  should 
have  had  the  privilege  of  raising.  To  get  a  general  idea  of  our  agri- 
cultural progress  since  1850,  when  the  first  complete  agricultural  returns 
were  enumerated,  Table  No.  25  has  been  prepared: 

Table  No.  25. 

Table  Shoiving  Progress  of  Agricultuic  in    United   States,  from  1830  to 
i8go.      Compiled  from  United  States  Census. 


farms   improved, 

113,032,614 
1.449,073 
53,27'.575.426  $6,645,045,007 
ural  product,  .  111,326,691,326:$    ' 

$151,537,638      $246,118,141 

$544,180,5:6  $1,089,329915 

$111,703,142      $213,618,692 

22.471.275 

60,264.913 

5.3S7.052 

566.867 

4.720.145, 


con..           " 

Oats. 

Barlev, 

BiK-kw1ic.it. 

jusheis; ; ; ; ; 

leese,  lbs 

V h, 

li,l)ushels,    .   . 

Tobacco?  lbs 
Number  of  s 
Rice,  lbs.,  . 

wine," : ; : : ; 

188.921,099!        284,771.042         357.6l6.755 

2.659.9S5  4.008,907  4.564.64' 

$9,262,803,861  $10,197,096,776  $13,279,252,649 

$2,477,538,658    $2,212,540,927    $2,460,107,454 


52,516,969 


$336,87S,429 

[1.525.276,457 

$398,956,376 

28,477 .951 


282, 


M57 


764.939: 

208,993 

331.345.836 

199.752.655' 
30.354.213' 
215.313.497 


236,7 
317.298,6 

23.310.7 
434.209,4 

33.512.S 
187,167,0 


29.761.305i 

9.821,721 

567.5S4.836 

27.316.048 

1,632.205 

213.706 

132,895.245, 

23.564,4691 

262,735,341 

25.134.569! 

73,635.021 


■.$406,520,055 

$1,500,384,707 

$303,562,413 

40,765.900 

232,500,000 

5  755.359 

7.170.951 

1. 565. .546 

459.48.!,137 

19.831.595 

■,754,591.676 

407,858.999 

43,997,495 

I1.817.327 

804,522,776 


$564,667,035    7 
44.336.072   8 

7,472!5li  to 

10,250.410  II 

241.3S9  12 

468,37.1.96**  13 

28,421,398  14 

2  122,327,547  15 

809,250,666  16 

78,332,976  17 

12.110,349  18 

1,042,950,286  19 

66,831,480  20 


334.237.322  23 
51.902,823  24 
488,256,646  25 


It  will  be  seen  that  there  has  been  a  steady  growth  and  that  in  the 
last  forty-five  years  our  agriculture  has  made  most  wonderful  strides. 

In  studying  the  table  it  must  be  remembered  that  all  values  in  1870 
were  on  a  paper  money  basis  and  the  amounts  should  be  decreased  by 
about  one-fifth.     This  alone  will  account  for  an   apparent  discrepancy  in 

1  About  one-fifth  should  be  deducted  from  all  values  of  1S70  to  allow  for  a  paper  money  basis. 


GROWTH  OF  AGRICULTURE,  1850  TO  1890. 


the  item  of  "  value  of  products,"  the  aggregate  for  1870  appearing  larger 
than  18S0.  The  census  of  1870  also  included  "betterments  and  addition 
to  stock,"  while  the  returns  for  1880  did  not  include  these  items.  Again 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  was  a  decline  in  prices  from  1870  to 
1880  ranging  from  10  to  50  per  cent,  which  will  also  account  for  the 
apparent  decrease  in  the  total  value  of  agricultural  products  during 
this  decade.  There  was,  however,  a  large  increase  in  quantities,  as  can 
be  seen  from  the  following  table.  There  are  no  official  figures  for  the 
total  value  of  agricultural  products  for  i860,  and  estimates  vary  from 
$1,400,000,000  to  $1,600,000,000,  the  latter  probably  being  more  nearly 
correct. 


Wheat,  bushels,  .  .  . 
Oats,  bushels,  .  .  . 
Indian  corn,  bushels,  . 
Cotton,  bales,     .    .    .    . 

Ha}-,  tons 

Rice,  pounds 

Tobacco,  pounds,  .  . 
Irish  potatoes,  bushels. 


287,745,626 
282,107,157 
760,944,549 
3,011,996 
27,316,048 
73,635,021 
262,735,341 
143.337,473 


459,483,137 
407,858,999 
,754,591,676 
5,755,359 
35,150,711 
110,131,373 
472,661,157 
169,458,539 


59-7 
44.6 
130.6 
91. 1 
2S.7 
49.6 

79-9 
18.2 


The  superintendent  of  the  census,  General  Francis  A.  Walker,  says: 

The  value  of  the  farms  of  the  United  States  as  returned  in  1S70,  was  $9,262,- 
803,861.  Were  this  to  be  discounted  at  the  rate  of  the  then  existing  premium  on 
gold,  it  would  yield  about  17,500,000,000  as  the  gold  value  of  the  farms  of  the 
United  States  at  that  date.  But  it  is  a  familiar  feature  of  paper  money  inflations 
that  the  value  of  real  estate,  especially  rural  real  estate,  seldom  begins  to  rise  so 
early  or  continues  to  rise  so  long  as  the  prices  of  commodities.  Were  we  to  assume 
the  average  enhancement  of  the  value  of  all  the  farms  of  the  country,  east  and 
west,  north  and  south,  in  1870,  by  reason  of  the  depreciation  of  the  currency,  to 
have  been  12 '<  per  cent,  being  one-half  the  premium  on  gold,  we  should  have  as 
their  true  gold  value  about  $8,250,000,000.  This  would  give  as  the  increase  in  the 
gold  values  of  1870  over  those  of  i860  (viz,  $6,645,045,007),  about  24  per  cent,  and 
in  those  of  18S0  over  1870  about  24  per  cent. 

The  foregoing  tables,  with  the  accompanying  explanations  of  General 
Walker,  give  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  American  agriculturist's  prog- 
ress during  the  past  fifty  years,  while  during  the  same  period  the  English 
agriculturist,  under  free  trade,  has  been  going  steadily  from  bad  to  wonse, 
till  he  is  hardly  a  factor  iji  the  industrial  life  of  Great  Britain.  The 
table  shows  most  decided  gains  in  every  feature  of  farm  life.  While 
the  total  value  of  products  shows  an  increase  from  1850  to  1890  of 
less  than  100  per  cent,  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  has  been  a  great 
change  in  prices  of  all  commodities  both  agricultural  and  manufactured. 
The  table  shows  clearly,  however,  the  increase  in  quantities  ol  the  various 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


products  of  the  farm,  and,  although  prices  have  fallen  in  agricultural  pro- 
ducts, or  what  the  farmer  sells,  they  have  fallen  by  a  far  greater  margin  in 
manufactures,  or  what  the  farmer  buys,  making  his  net  gain  a  most  sub- 
stantial one. 

The  census  returns  of  agricultural  products,  however,  are  by  no  means 
complete.  In  the  first  place  returns  from  no  farm  of  less  than  three  acres  were 
given  unless  the  product  exceeded  $500.  The  census  gives  only  ' '  principal 
vegetable  productions" and  '  'livestock  on  hand. ' '  Under  the  head  of  '  'manu- 
factures" we  find  values  of  meats  produced  in  the  packing-houses,  but  of 
all  the  livestock  killed  by  over  75,000  butchers  by  whom  the  people  are 
supplied  with  the  best  of  their  meat,  the  census  gives  no  return  whatever. 
It  gives  the  number  of  livestock  kept  but  not  the  number  killed  for  food. 
The  amount  killed  by  the  butchers  is  ten  times  that  which  goes  through 
the  packing-houses.  It  has  been  estimated  that  the  per  capita  consump- 
tion of  meat  in  the  United  States  is  from  fifty  to  seven t>--five  dollars  per 
year.  Taking  the  lowest  of  these  estimates  our  annual  consumption  of 
meat  would  now  reach  the  enormous  value  of  $3,700,000,000  including 
that  enumerated  in  the  census.  The  census  also  omits  "garden  truck," 
so-called,  except  potatoes.  Nothing  is  said  of  turnips,  beets,  celery, 
cresses,  asparagus,  pumpkins,  squash,  melons,  citron,  cauliflower,  let- 
tuce, onions,  cabbage,  parsnips,  carrots,  berries  of  any  kind,  beans,  peas, 
peanuts,  nuts  of  any  kind,  quinces,  grapes,  currants,  cider,  cider 
brandy,  applejack,  oysters,  clams  or  other  water  products,  cordwood, 
building  materials,  quarries,  game,  or  manj-  other  products  of  count- 
less farms.  Certainly  $2,000,000,000  is  a  fair  estiinate  for  all  these. 
Our  total  farm  products,  then,  on  a  most  conservative  estimate,  reach  a 
grand  total  in  excess  of  $7,500,000,000,  of  which  we  sent  abroad  in  1894 
$628,000,000  worth,  or  about  8  per  cent,  and  if  we  exclude  cotton  and 
tobacco  it  will  only  be  about  4  per  cent.  But  we  imported  $270,000,000 
of  farm  products  in  the  same  year  so  that  our  actual  consumption  is  from 
96  to  98  per  cent  of  our  production. 

In  a  word  then  the  American  farmer  during  the  past  half  centur\-. 
and  especially  during  the  past  quarter  century,  has  enjoyed  amazing  pros- 
perity, and  American  agriculture  has  shown  a  wonderful  growth.  And 
yet  we  hear  the  constant  refrain  from  free  traders  in  Congress  and  on  the 
platform,  in  pamphlet  and  paper,  "  Why  is  not  the  farmer  prosperous  ?  ' ' 
the  answer  being,  of  course,  protection.  It  has  been  shown  that  the 
farmer  has  been  prosperous,  and  it  can  be  shown  with  equal  facility  and 
clearness  how  he  can  be  more  prosperous.  In  the  first  place,  he  has 
never  had  suflScient  protection.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  causes  enumer- 
ated from  1846  to  i860,  our  agricultural  industry  would  have  suffered  as 
it  did  in  1820  and  1840,  and  as  it  has  whenever  the  manufacturing 
intere.sts  were  depressed  by  low  tariffs.  For  the  last  thirty  years  wher- 
ever the  farmer  has  had  a  market  without  foreign  competition,  he  has 


GROWTH  OF  AGllICULTUBE,   1850  TO  1890. 


prospered  ;  wherever  he  has  lacked  a  market  or  had  foreign  competi- 
tion, he  has  only  held  his  own  or  lost  ground.  First  to  consider 
foreign  competition.  It  does  not  need  a  volume  to  prove  that  the 
American  farmer  cannot  pay  his  laborer  a  dollar  a  day  and  compete 
with  the  farmer  of  India  who  pays  six  or  ten  cents  a  day.  The  wool 
grower  of  Ohio,  Montana  or  Texas  cannot  compete  even  in  the  home 
market  with  the  herdsman  of  Australia  and  Argentine,  who  enjoys  the 
advantages  of  immense  flocks,  government  lands  and  cheap  pasturage. 
The  cotton  grower  of  the  South  is  even  threatened  with  an  invasion  of 
his  staple  product.  The  sugar  grower  of  Louisiana  and  the  beet  raiser  of 
Kansas  must  have  aid  of  some  kind  to  enable  them  to  compete  with  the 
Cuban. 

The  increase  in  transportation  facilities  the  world  over,  the  cheapness 
of  lands  and  labor  in  foreign  countries,  and  the  eagerness  to  compete 
not  only  in  neutral  markets,  but  to  gain  a  foothold  in  our  own,  make  it 
absolutely  indispensable  that  the  American  farmer  should  have  ample  pro- 
tection for  each  and  every  one  of  his  productions.  There  are  to-day 
10,000,000  agricultural  laborers  in  the  United  States,  upon  each  of  whom 
two  other  persons  depend  for  support,  and  with  a  protective  tariff  sufficient 
to  maintain  our  maiuifactures,  thereby  creating  and  preserving  a 
home  market,  and  sufficient  to  keep  out  all  staple  agricultural  products, 
the  American  farmer  can  and  will  in  a  short  time  raise  wool  enough, 
produce  sugar  enough,  harvest  grain  enough,  and  furnish  enough  of  every 
product  to  supply  a  market  almost  at  his  own  door,  that  in  turn  will  be 
amply  sufficient  to  give  him  profitable  returns  for  his  labor.  Having 
ample  protection  then  for  himself  and  his  customers,  what  next  must  the 
farmer  do  to  continue  prosperous  ?  If  the  10,000,000  all  grow  wheat  no 
one  will  prosper.  If  proper  proportions  grow  wheat,  corn,  cotton,  rye, 
oats,  hay,  sugar,  flax,  wool,  meat,  fruit  and  vegetables,  all  will  prosper. 
Manufacturers  adapt  themselves  to  demand,  farmers  must  do  the 
same.  There  is  no  need  of  going  to  Cuba  for  sugar,  nor  to  Australia  for 
wool,  nor  to  India  for  cotton,  wheat  or  jute.  Our  farmers  must  study 
markets,  must  consider  their  own  resources,  must  adapt  themselves  to 
conditions  and  vote  to  sustain  protection  to  home  industries.  It  has 
already  been  shown  on  another  page,  how  100,000,000  sheep  would  con- 
sume all  our  surplus  hay,  corn  and  oats.  Our  beet  raising  resources 
are  unequaled,  and  if  taken  advantage  of  would  not  only  result  in  sup- 
plying enough  sugar  for  our  needs,  but  withdraw  labor'  and  capital  from 
unprofitable  forms  of  production.  We  can  and  do  grow  the  best  flax  in 
the  world,  and  yet  it  is  almost  exclusively  used  for  seed.  The  rich  soil 
of  certain  of  our  States  is  as  well  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of  flax  as  that 
of  any  other  part  of  the  world,  and  our  linen  factories  should  be  entirely 
supplied  with  the  American  product,  which  can  be  done  and  to  the 
advantage  of  the  growers  of  all  other  products.    No  better  exposition  of 


Need  of 
diversifies^ 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


this  idea  could  be  given  than  the  following  by  J.  R.  Dodge,   former  sta- 
tistician of  the  Department  of  Agriculture: 


In  a  primitive  country  the  first  business  of  farmers  is  to  produce  food  to  cater 
to  the  wants  of  the  stomach;  if  they  go  no  farther,  as  population  advances  and  its 
wants  increase  with  the  progress  of  culture  and  civilization,  and  so  neglect  to  sup- 
pl}'  the  "raw  materials"  for  the  uses  of  the  industrial  arts,  their  countr}-  will  for- 
ever remain  primitive  and  poor.  This  country  can  not  claim  exemption  from  the 
inexorable  rule.  Nine-tenths  (at  least)  of  all  the  raw  materials  required  for 
textile,  metallic,  mechanical,  chemical,  oleaginous  or  other  manufacture  can  be 
produced,  primarily  by  our  farmers,  diverting  their  labor  to  profitable  channels, 
nd  swelling  the  value  of  their  products,  steadying  the  prices  of  the  food  staples, 
and  insuring  prosperity  and  comfort  to  all.  No  other  panacea  will  cure  hard  times; 
a  profitable  outlet,  by  diversification  and  extension,  for  constantly  augmenting  rural 
labor,  can  alone  make  rural  industry  profitable.  If  the  policy  of  going  abroad  for 
all  fibres  except  cotton  shall  be  put  into  permanent  practice,  and  for  all  sugar  and 
fruits,  barley  and  oil  seeds,  to  be  paid  for  in  corn  and  wheat  and  cotton,  which  are 
already  crowded  into  foreign  markets  to  the  last  pound  and  bushel,  there  will  be 
no  necessity  for  a  "single  tax"  to  make  the  farmer's  land  valueless,  and  no  need 
of  account-books,  or  pocket-books,  and  little  demand.for  books  of  any  kind. 

And  5'et  there  is  gross  ignorance  abroad  of  the  extent  of  these  limitations  of 
our  agriculture,  and  of  the  means  of  recuperation.  Many  of  our  farmers  are  delay- 
ing the  emancipation  of  rural  industry  and  seeking  to  import  cordage  to  bind  upon 
their  backs  still  closer  their  present  burdens.  Instead  of  enlarging  the  range  of  profit- 
able production,  they  are  seeking  to  restrict  it.  The  wheat  growers  insist  upon  going 
to  the  antipodes  for  binder  twine,  while  a  million  acres  of  flax  are  wasted  in  adjoin- 
ing fields,  and  when  they  could  produce  hemp  enough  within  six  months  to  bind 
the  wheat  of  the  world.  The  cotton-growers  want  to  go  to  India  for  jute,  which  will 
grow  in  their  cotton-fields  as  readily  as  weeds.  If  we  will  not  produce  the  twine 
to  bind  our  sheaves,  or  the  jute  or  hemp  or  flax  to  cover  our  bales,  we  shall  have 
no  right  to  complain  of  50  cents  per  bushel  for  the  one  or  5  cents  per  pound  for 
the  other. 

With  ample  protection,  and  diversified  occupations,  the  remaining 
factor  of  the  farmer's  prosperity  lies  in  the  nearness  of  the  factory-.  This 
is  no  theory.  It  is  a  condition  based  on  experience  and  capable  of  the 
clearest  proof.  The  farmer  who  in  his  own  wagon  carries  his  grain  and 
vegetables  to  the  neighboring  town  where  dwells  the  well-paid  mill  hand, 
enjoys  a  far  greater  return  for  his  labor  than  the  farmer  who  sends  hi.^ 
produce  to  a  foreign  or  far-awaj'^  domestic  market,  with  freights  and  the 
profits  of  middlemen  to  be  deducted  from  his  selling  price,  even  if  the 
selling  price  to  the  consumer  were  the  same  in  both  instances.  The 
farmer  who  sells  at  home  not  only  makes  a  quick  sale  with  no  loss  from 
decay,  waste,  expenses  of  carriage,  or  other  profits,  but  the  farmer  of  the 
United  States  has  a  customer  with  a  purchasing  power  far  in  excess  of  any 
other  customer  or  consumer  of  food  on  earth,  who  is  not  only  able  and 
willing  to  pay  better  prices  for  his  food,  but  who  purchases  Uvice  the 
quantity  or  more.  This  fact  has  been  clearly  established  in  tables  com- 
piled by  the  Agricultural  Department  showing  that  farm  values  and  produc- 
tion as  well  as  prices  are  greater  in  the  manufacturing  countries  and  States. 


GROWTH  OF  AGRICULTURE,  1S50  TO  1S90. 


This  is  seen  clearh'  by  taking  two  representative  States  and  showing 
the  cash  value  of  farm  products  per  acre  in  1S87,  as  per  report  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  for  that  year: 

Cash  Vai,ue  of  Products  per  Acre. 

Indiana.  Massachusetts. 

Corn, J9.00  $24.78 

Wheat, 9.72  14.81 

Rye 6.3S  7.70 

Oats, 7. S3  12.21 

Barley, 11. 71  16.53 

Buckwheat, 5.48  9.72 

Potatoes, 31.35  60.72 

Hay, 11.52  1S.96 

Tobacco, 22.00  242.25 

Quoting  further  from  the  same  authority,  the  yield  per  acre  is  seen: 

Indiana,      bushels  of  corn  per  acre,  20 

Massachusetts, "  "  "  35.4 

Indiana,      price  per  bushel,  45  cents. 

Massachusetts, "  "  70 

Further  still,  the  wages  of  agricultural  laborers  for  the  same  States, 
taken  from  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture's  report  for  1885,  were  as 
follows: 

Indiana, per  month  per  year,  jt22.2o 

Massachusetts, "  "  2S.75 

Indiana, day  transient,  i.oS 

Massachusetts,      "  "  1.50 

Nor  is  this  all.  One  of  the  Eastern  investment  companies,  whose  sole 
business  is  to  effect  loans  on  Western  farms,  reports  among  the  buyers  of 
farm  mortgages,  ten  savings  banks  in  Vermont  and  thirty-three  savings 
banks  in  New  Hampshire.  As  the  two  States  named  are  principally 
agricultural,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  loans  are  mainly  from  Eastern 
to  Western  farmers.  These  figures,  let  it  be  clearly  understood,  are  given 
for  the  one  purpose  of  showing  the  advantage  of  proximity  of  facm  and  fac- 
tory;  and  since  the  date  of  compilation  Indiana  and  all  her  sister  States  have 
yearly  reaped  more  and  more  the  benefits  of  this  very  condition,  and  will 
continue  to  do  so  as  new  industries,  fostered  and  protected  by  an  adequate 
tariff,  are  planted  and  operated  near  the  great  farms  of  the  West. 

The  loans  made  by  Eastern  to  Western  farmers  bring  us  to  the  subject 
of  Western  farm  mortgages.  Perhaps  no  feature  of  our  industrial  eco- 
nomics has  given  the  free  trader  so  much  apparent  concern  as  this  matter 
of  Western  farm  mortgages.  Certainly  no  subject  has  furnished  the  ground 
for  so  much  deceit  and  fraudulent  presentation  of  figures,  inaccurate 
premises  and  false  conclusions.  A  vast  number  of  farmers  owe  their 
present  prosperous  condition  to  the  fact  that  they  have  gone  West,  bought 
farms,  and  been  able  to  borrow  the  money  to  improve  and  develop  them. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred  a  farm  mortgage  is  an  evidence  of 
thrift  and  progress,  and  not  of  embarrassment  or  shiftlessness.  Farm 
mortgages  for  the  most  part  represent  cultivated  and  productive  farms  and 
comfortable  homes,  where  otherwise  there  would  haye  been  waste  lands. 
Farm  mortgages  have  enabled  the  day  laborers  to  become  prosperous 
farmers  on  their  own  account.  They  have  enabled  a  farmer  to  increase 
his  acres  two,  four,  ten,  and  even  fifty  times  with  production  of  like  ratio. 
It  is  true  that  some  mortgages  are  foreclosed  and  some  farmers  fail  to 
make  their  payments,  but  so  do  some  manufacturers  and  merchants. 
Pages  might  be  filled  with  illustrations  of  misleading  statistics  which  have 
been  circulated  by  the  agents  of  the  Cobden  Club,  regarding  these  farm 
mortgages,  but  one  or  two  will  suffice. 

During  the  campaign  of  1888  a  table  was  compiled  and  went  the 
rounds  of  the  free  trade  press  purporting  to  show  the  farm  mortgages  of 
six  States  as  follows: 

Western  Farm  Mortgages. 

Kansas 1235,000,000 

Indiana 635,000,000 

Iowa, 567,000,000 

Michigan, 500,000,000 

Wisconsin, 357,000,000 

Ohio 1,127,000,000 

Now  by  ttirning  to  the  compendium  of  the  tenth  census  the  reader 
will  find: 

Vai,ue  of  Farms. 

Kansas, $235,000,000 

Indiana 635,000,000 

Iowa, 567,000,000 

Michigan, 500,000,000 

Wisconsin,      357,ooo>coo 

Ohio 1,127,000,000 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  census  figures  of  farm  values  is  published  as 
farm  mortgages.  It  seems  that  such  a  gross  error  as  this  could  only  have 
been  committed  with  a  deliberate  intent  to  deceive. 

Comment  on  such  reprehensible  methods  of  free  traders  in  arousing 
concern  for  the  farmer  is  hardly  necessary.  Another  instance  of  free  trade 
fabrication  pure  and  simple  was  a  statement  made  by  the  New  York  Times 
that  the  farm  mortgages  of  Illinois  amounted  to  $620,000,000.  As  this 
item  went  the  rounds  it  grew  larger  and  larger  till  the  St.  Louis  Republic 
made  it  $3,000,000,000.  At  the  time  this  item  was  to.ssed  around  it  was 
impossible  to  give  any  authoritative  figures  of  any  kind.  Subsequently, 
however,  in  1889  the  Illinois  bureau  of  labor  completed  inquiries  and  com- 
piled the  statistics.  The  facts  were  these  :  The  total  mortgage  indebted- 
ness on  farms  was  $123,733,098  of  which  $20,633,072  were  for  defeiTed 
payment  on  the  purchase  money.     According  to  the  census  of  1880  tliere 


GROWTH  OF  AGKlCULrURE,  ISSO  TO  1S90. 


were  in  the  State  of  Illinois  34,694,172  acres  outside  of  Cook  Count}- 
(Chicago)  valued  at  $979,703,337,  showing  that  the  mortgage  indebtedness 
for  loans  was  only  10.52  per  cent  of  the  census  valuation.  The  average 
life  of  a  mortgage  was  found  to"  be  three  years,  and  the  average  rate  of 
interest  not  20,  15  or  even  10  per  cent,  but  6.g  per  cent.  So,  too,  with 
Nebraska  and  Kansas  and  Iowa  and  other  Western  States.  When  the 
free  traders"  claims  are  analyzed  and  reduced  to  truth,  little  remains  but  a 
small  per  cent  of  debt  which  is  being  rapidly  liquidated.  So  much  was 
said  and  written  on  this  subject  in  1888  and  1889  that  the  superintendent 
of  the  census  made  a  thorough  investigation  in  1890  and  since  his  reports 
have  been  published  free  trade  papers  and  orators  have  left  the  subject 
severely  alone.  Besides  the  general  statistics  gathered,  a  thorough  can- 
vass was  made  by  trained  statisticians  in  counties  in  Illinois,  Iowa,  Massa- 
chusetts and  New  York.  Superintendent  Porter  summarizes  the  results 
of  the  canvass  as  follows: 

First  it  was  shown  (by  the  Cattaraugus  County,  N.  Y. ,  investigation),  with  a 
fair  degree  of  accuracy,  that  only  eight-tenths  of  i  per  cent  of  the  total  debt  repre- 
sented by  mortgages  recorded  prior  to  1869  remained  unpaid.  Less  than  8  per  cent 
of  the  mortgage  debt  in  force  is  represented  by  mortgages  recorded  prior  to  1S79. 
The  other  experimental  inquiries  made  by  the  census  office  fully  corroborate  the 
fact  brought  out  in  Cattaraugus  County.  It  was  ascertained,  for  example,  that  only 
3  per  cent  of  the  mortgage  del  t  of  the  people  of  Hampden  County,  Massachusetts, 
was  created  prior  to  iSSo,  and  that  only  5  per  cent  of  the  debt  in  Scott  County, 
Iowa,  was  created  before  18S0.  These  three  conclusions,  all  pointing  in  the  same 
direction,  would  indicate  in  the  Western  States  certainly,  and  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  the  Eastern  States,  that  a  comparatively  small  percentage  of  the  existing 
recorded  indebtedness  of  the  present  time  was  created  previous  to  1S80. 

The  Motive  for  MojiTG.\GiNG  Property  in  Nine  Towns  of  Cattaraugus 
County. 

Percentage. 

For  purchase  money 54.55 

For  improvements, 17.30 

To  pay  previous  mortgage, 1.81 

To  pay  debts i  .38 

To  use  in  business, 1.68 

To  secure  indorsements,      1.40 

To  raise  money  for  investment, 60 

To  sink  oil  wells 29 

To  secure  annuities, •  .    .      .25 

To  pay  off  heirs, l5 

For  support  and  family  expenses, 14 

Sickness,      16 

Extravagance 14 

Speculation 08 

Miscellaneous 30 

Total, 80.24 

No  motive  ascertained, 19.76 

Total, 100.00 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Mr.  Edward  Atkinson  (free  trader)  took  occasion  to  investigate  the 
matter  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Mortgage  Loan  Companies,  and  his 
conchisions  were  published  in  Bradstreet's,  November  12,  1887.  We  quote 
the  following: 

The  reduction  in  the  rate  of  interest  has  been  from  10  per  cent  annual  interest 
and  10  per  cent  commission  on  a  five  years'  mortgage  to  an  average  of  6;i  to  7^2  per 
cent  at  the  present  time,  without  commission. 

:Many  of  those  to  whom  loans  were  first  made  are  now  lenders  through  the 
same  corporations. 

The  present  conditions  indicate  widespread  and  almost  universal  prosperity. 

Mr.  Atkinson  says  further  on  this  subject  in  the  Forum  of  May,  1894: 

There  are  within  the  United  States  4,564,641  separate  farms,  averaging  about  137 
acres  each,  of  which,  in  the  Eastern,  Middle,  Western  and  Pacific  States,  So  per  cent 
are  occupied  and  managed  by  their  owners.  Far  more  than  one-half  these  farms  are 
free  of  any  mortgage  whatever  ;  the  rest  are  mortgaged  for  far  less  than  half  their 
value. 

The  result  of  that  investigation  has  sustained  the  conclusions  which  I  had 
reached  by  a  very  partial  investigation  of  the  same  subject  in  the  preceding  five 
years,  namely : 

1.  That  the  larger  part  of  the  Western  farms  cultivated  by  owners  were  free  of 
any  mortgage  whatever. 

2.  That  the  Western  farmers  were  creditors  rather  than  debtors. 

3.  That  the  burden  of  farm  mortgages  is  a  very  light  one. 

In  fact,  the  statistics  of  this  partial  investigation,  which  was  necessarily  very 
limited,  had  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  there  existed  no  great  body  of  the  people 
of  any  class  in  this  country,  who  were,  as  a  w^hole,  so  free  from  debt  and  so  abso- 
lutely independent  as  the  Western  farmers  of  the  grain-growing  States. 

In  making  provision  for  the  census  of  i8go,  a  special  appropriation  of  |i,ooo,- 
000  was  set  apart  to  be  expended  in  ascertaining  the  exact  condition  of  farms  and 
homes  with  respect  to  mortgages.  A  more  useful  appropriation  could  not  have  been 
made  for  any  statistical  purpose.  Mr.  George  K.  Holmes  and  Mr.  John  S.  Lord 
were  deputed  by  the  superintendent  of  the  census  to  do  this  work,  and  there  could 
have  been  no  more  judicious  selection.  On  the  nineteenth  of  December  an  extra 
census  bulletin  was  issued,  giving  the  statistics  of  the  decade  from  1S80  to  1889, 
inclusive,  in  thirty-three  States  and  territories.  The  total  mortgage  indebtedness 
of  the  whole  country  has  been  ascertained,  and  it  is  stated  that  this  detailed  report 
of  thirty-three  States  covers  seven-ninths  of  the  mortgages  made  in  the  United 
States  during  the  decade,  and  that  the  outstanding  mortgage  debt  on  the  first  of 
Jauuarj',  1890,  given  in  this  report,  covers  substantially  five-sixths  of  the  entire 
mortgage  debt  on  acres  and  lots  in  the  whole  country. 

The  first  startling  fact  developed  by  the  mortgage  statistics  is  that  in  these  speci- 
fic thirty-three  States  and  territories  nearly  7,000,000  mortgages  have  been  recorded 
in  ten  years  for  a  total  sum  of  nearly  $9,500,000,000.  The  final  statement,  covering 
the  whole  country,  which  has  not  yet  been  published,  discloses  the  fact  that  9,517." 
747  mortgages  were  executed  in  the  decade  1880-89,  to  the  amount  of  f  12,094,877,- 
793. 

On  the  first  of  January,  1890,  the  amount  of  these  mortgages  remaining  unpaid 
in  thirty-thur  StaUs  was  14,935,455,896;  in  the  whole  United  States,  16,019,679,- 
9S5.  It,  then  r. Ml,  ii]. pears  that  during  the  decade  one-half  the  mortgages  incurred 
had  already  been  p.ml. 


GBOWrn  OF  AGRICULTURE,   1850  TO  1S90. 


These  original  mortgages  executed  prior  to  iSSo  must  have  Iieen  wholly  liqui- 
dated, mostly  by  payment.  Evidence  obtained  from  solvent  farm  mortgage  compa- 
nies proves  that,  as  fast  as  they  matured,  they  were  either  finally  paid,  or  else  in 
some  instances  new  mortgages  were  executed  at  much  lower  rates  of  interest  than 
were  customary  in  the  era- of  paper  money  in  the  previous  decade.  On  this  basis 
the  summary  would  be : 

Mortgages  in  force  January  i,  iSSo,  estimated $  1,500,000,000 

Executed  since 12,000,000,000 

Total, $13,500,000,000 

In  force  Januarj-  i,  1S90, 6,000,000,000 

Paid, ■....$  7,500,000,000 

The  payments,  therefore,  amounted  to  55  per  cent. 

We  find  that  the  average  life  of  a  farm  mortgage  is  a  little  less  than  five  j'ears 
— rather  longer  in  the  East  than  in  the  West,  but  practicall}'  five  years  in  the  grain- 
growing  States. 

In  order  to  bring  out  the  evidence  of  prosperity  rather  than  adversity  developed 
in  these  conditions,  one  must  ask,  What  does  a  man,  in  fact,  borrow,  when  he 
executes  a  mortgage  upon  land  ?  He  does  not  borrow  money  in  a  true  sense.  In  a 
vast  number  of  cases  only  a  title  to  money  passes  in  the  form  of  a  check,  a  draft 
or  a  bill  of  exchange.  What  he  in  fact  borrows  is  the  land  itself,  or  such  part  of 
it  as  the  encumbrance  represents.  If  we  regard  foreclosure  as  a  sign  of  lack  of 
benefit  to  the  borrower,  the  figures  show  that  in  all  but  an  insignificant  proportion 
of  these  negotiations  it  has  been  as  much  or  more  to  the  advantage  of  the  borrower 
to  borrow  the  farm  or  home  as  it  has  been  to  the  benefit  of  the  lender  in  securing 
interest  on  the  loan.  The  advantage  is  mutual,  but  distinctly  greater  on  the  part 
of  the  borrower,  who  has  been  enabled  to  become  the  owner  of  a  homestead  and  the 
improvements  thereon  at  lessening  rates  of  interest  throughout  this  period. 

The  first  effective  analysis  of  farm  mortgages  which  has  ever  come  under  my 
notice  was  made  by  Mr.  A.  H.  Heath,  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  Statistics  of 
Michigan  for  the  3'ear  1S88.  He  obtained  the  data  for  58  per  cent  of  all  the  farms 
of  Michigan,  numbering  90,  S03,  assessed  for  1194,854,633. 

Out  of  90,  S03  farmers  43, 079  stated  that  their  farms  were  mortgaged.  A  few 
refused  to  reply.  The  greater  part  of  the  rernainder  stated  that  their  farms  were 
not  mortgaged.  The  true  value  of  the  farms  which  were  mortgaged,  estimated  to 
be  about  one-half  the  total  number,  was  |ioo,ooo,ooo;  the  mortgage  debt  #37,500,- 
000.  Of  the  farms  investigated,  31,570  were  owned  or  occupied  by  men  of  foreign 
birth,  the  rest  by  Americans.  In  answer  to  the  question  put  to  the  foreign  element, 
"Had  they  any  money  when  they  arrived  in  the  State?"  8067  answered,  "Yes," 
giving  the  sum  of  money  in  their  possession  at  $4,633,188  in  all;  23,503  answered, 
' '  No. ' '     From  these  data  we  reach  the  following  conclusion  : 

Foreigners  brought  money  into  the  State  to  the  amount  of,  .    .  |    4,633,188 
The  mortgage  debt  on  these  specific  farms  was, 11,191,714 

Making  a  total  of, $  16,824,902 

The  assessed  vSlue  of  these  specific  farms  was, 52,537,871 

The  true  value, 65,672,333 

It  follows  that  these  31,570  foreigners  who  came  from  Germany,  Canada, 
England,  Ireland,  Holland,  Scotland  and  nearly  every  other  countrv'  in  Europe, 
from  the  East   Indies,     Australia,  Hayti,  Mexico   and     South   America,  had   been 


TAIUFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


enabled,  b}-  borrowing  money  on  mortgage  to  become  possessed  of  real  estate  worth 
150,000,000  more  than  the  encumbrance  and  the  cash  brought  in  by  themselves : 
and  this  estimate  does  not  include  the  farm  animals,  tools  and  furniture  used  upon 
the  farm. 

The  principal  Western  indebtedness  on  mortgage  is  in  and  around  Chicago, 
but  there  is  one  startling  fact  to  which  my  attention  has  been  called  by  Mr.  Holmes. 
In  the  great  urban  region  in  and  around  New  York  City,  in  Kings,  Queens,  New 
York,  Richmond  and  Westchester  Counties,  in  the  State  of  New  York;  and  in  the 
counties  of  Bergen,  Essex,  Hudson,  Monmouth,  Passaic  and  Union,  in  the  State  of 
New  Jersey,  the  real  estate  mortgage  debt  is  11,279,343,703.  This  amount  is  21.25 
per  cent  of  the  whole  real  estate  mortgage  debt  of  the  United  States.  It  is  51.04 
per  cent  of  the  real  estate  mortgage  debt  of  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  West, 
extending  from  Ohio  westward  to  Kansas  and  northward  to  the  Dakotas,  w  ith  its 
populous  cities  of  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Detroit,  Minneapolis,  Kansas 
City,  Milwaukee,  Omaha,  St.  Louis  and  St.  Paul.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  the 
value  of  the  real  estate  in  and  about  New  York  is  far  more  than  sufficient  to  sustain 
this  indebtedness,  yet  it  is  an  important  fact  to  know  where  the  indebtedness  lies, 
and  what  is  the  relative  burden  contrasting  the  East  with  the  West. 

It  will  be  remarked  that  the  amount  of  the  encumbrance  in  the  eleven  counties 
in  and  around  the  City  of  New  York  exceeds  the  amount  of  mortgages  on  all  the 
farms  of  the  United  States. 

Speaking  further  of  the  Censtus  Inqtiirj-,  Mr.  Atkinson  saj-s: 
Thus  far  the  mortgages  upon  acres  have  been   dealt  with   as   if  the}'  were  the 
same  as  mortgages  on  farms.     As  yet  no  complete  separation  has  been  made,  but  I 
am  permitted  to  make  the  following  statement  on  the  authority  of  the  census  officials. 
In  Bulletin   No.  63   a  partial   analysis   is  made  of  the  specific  mortgages  on 
actual  farms  which  are  occupied  by  owners  apart  from  hired  farms,  and  acres  which 
are  not  strictly  farms.     Deductions   from  these  figures,  applied  to  the  total  mort- 
gage on  acres  in  the  United  States,  would  give  the  following  restilt : 
Total  mortgage  on  acres  in  the  whole  country,  Jaimary  i, 

1890, ■    ■    •      $  2,209,148,431 

On  farms  occupied  and  worked  by  owners  (estimated),  .      1,009,  i48>43i 
On  hired  farms  and  acres  not  strictly  farms, 1,200,000,000 

The  encumbrance  on  hired  farms  is  believed  to  be  verj'  small.  The  value  of 
all  the  4,564,641  farms  in  the  United  States  in  1890,  including  improvements,  was 
^13,279,252,649.  The  estimated  mortgage  thereon,  January  i,  1S90,  was  |i, 009, 148,- 
431,  equal  to  8  per  cent,  subject  to  the  addition  of  a  small  amount  on  hired  farms. 

In  substantiation  of  these  views  of  Mr.  Atkinson,  the  following  can 
be  added  from  the  last  annual  report  of  the  Secretary'  of  Agriculture, 
Sterling  Morton.  Speaking  of  the  indebtedness  of  various  classes  of 
owners  he  says  :  ' '  These  figures  show  an  enormous  and  constant  indebt- 
edness of  the  banks  and  bankers  alongside  of  which  the  mone)'  in  farm 
mortgages  and  the  debts  offered  bj'  farmers  are  relatively  insignificant. 
The  debts  of  railroads,  bankers,  manufacturers  and  merchants  entitle  them 
and  not  the  farmers,  to  be  called  the  '  debtor  class  '  in  America." 

In  closing  this  subject  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  note  that  according  to 
Mulhall  the  mortgage  of  real  estate  in  England  is  58  per  cent  of  its 
value,  and  Sir  Edward  Sullivan  says:    "Since  1876  value  of  lands  and 


GROWTH  OF  AGRICULTURE,  1S50  TO  1S90. 


incomes  from  farms  in  England  have  fallen  from  30  to  50  per  cent,  but 
the  interest  on  the  mortgages  remains  the  same."  Of  these  same  farm- 
ers Henry  Fawcett,  the  eminent  free  trade  economist,  says: 

There  are  few  classes  of  workmen  who  in  many  respects  are  so  thoroughly 
wretched  as  the  English  agricultural  laborers.  They  are  in  many  respects  so  miser- 
ably poor  that  if  they  were  converted  into  slaves  to-morrow  it  would  be  for  the 
interest  of  their  owniers  to  feed  them  far  better  than  they  are  at  present.  Through 
out  large  agricultural  districts  not  a  single  agricultural  laborer  will  be  found  who 
has  saved  so  much  as  a  week's  wages.  A  life  of  toiling  and  incessant  industry 
offers  no  other  prospect  than  a  miserable  old  age. 

But  the  condition  of  the  English  farmer  is  not  the  subject  of  this 
chapter,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  place  the  American  agriculturist  in  contrast 
with  the  degraded  and  ruined  tillers  of  other  lands  to  prove  his  prosperity. 
He  is  the  most  happy,  the  most  contented  and  withal  the  most  prosperous 
of  all  our  people.  His  labors,  his  cares,  his  responsibilities  are  all  lighter 
than  those  of  the  average  worker.  His  acres  are  his  own.  The  products 
of  his  lands  he  can  consume  himself  or  sell  at  will.  His  house  is  a  home 
and  not  a  hovel. 


CHAPTER   V. 

Textiles,  Iron  and  Steel,  and  Miscellaneous  Industries'. 

Half  a  million  persons  were  employed  in  the  textile  industries  of 
this  country  in  1892  with  wages  exceeding  $165,000,000.  The  cotton 
industry  dates  back  over  a  century,  the  Slater  Mill  of  1790  being  the  first 
.successful  one  started  in  this  countrj-,  and  in  1890  221,585  persons  were 
employed,  turning  out  $267,981,724  worth  of  cotton  goods.  Without  a 
protective  tariff  this  result  could  never  have  been  accomplished.  Great 
Britain  had  many  years  the  start  of  us,  and  exerted  herself  by  law  and 
otherwise  to  crush  out  the  industry  here.  American  grown  cotton  was  not 
then  used.  Slater  insisted  on  importing  his  cotton  from  India, and  the  man 
who  had  predicted  that  the  United  States  would  one  day  grow  cotton  for 
the  world  would  have  been  an  object  of  ridicule.  American  cotton  has 
been  in  use  for  about  sixty  years.  In  1829  the  crop  amounted  to  870,415 
bales.  In  1891  it  exceeded  9,000,000  bales.  A  duty  of  three  cents  per 
pound  was  imposed  in  1790  and  remained  with  slight  changes  till  1846. 
From  that  year  it  continued  on  the  free  list  till  1862.  It  was  again  made 
free  in  1868  and  has  remained  on  the  free  list  since.  In  1799  we  exported 
9,000,000  pounds,  in  1817  95,000,000  pounds,  in  1845  872,000,000 
pounds,  and  in  1894  2,669,026,886  pounds  valued  at  $207,964,384.  We 
grow  three-quarters  of  the  world's  crop  and  our  American  mills  consume 
one-quarter  of  it.  Our  early  cotton  mills  endured  a  hard  struggle.  The 
low  duties  (15  per  cent  ad  valorem)  were  not  sufficient  to  enable  our 
manufacturers  to  withstand  English  competition.  In  1807  we  imported 
about  $11,000,000  worth  of  cotton  goods  from  England,  but  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  came  the  embargo  act,  when  imports  of  foreign  goods  were 
prohibited  and  our  cotton  manufactures  took  a  rapid  stride.  The  war  of 
1812  increased  the  output  and  in  1815  we  had  500,000  spindles  at  work 
consuming  90,000  bales  of  raw  cotton.  At  the  same  time  England  was 
using  235,350  bales  and  turning  out  far  superior  goods.  In  1816  a  uni- 
form duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  was  imposed,  this  being  increased  to 
35  per  cent  (minimum)  in  1824.  Even  free  traders  like  Professor  Taussig 
admit  that  the  protective  duties  of  1816  and  1824  were  necessarj-  for  the 
continuance  of  the  cotton  industry  of  this  countrj-.  Coarse  cotton  cloths 
at  Hint  time  were  worth  twenty -five  and  thirty  cents  a  yard.  By  1846 
the  industry  was  firmly  established  and  though  the  duty  was  reduced  that 
year  the  reduction  was  slight  and  still  sufficient.  We  were,  however, 
making  only  the  coarser  grades.  When  the  war  of  the  rebellion  came, 
and  with  it  higher  duties,  finer  grades  were  made.  Since  1870  our  prog- 
ress in  all  grades  of  cotton  manufactures  has  been  rapid  and  constant. 
(672) 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


The  table  on  page  674,  from  the  Bulletin  of  the  National  Association  of 
Wool  Manufacturers,'  compiled  from  official  sources,  will  show  not  only 
our  own  progress  but  a  comparison  with  England  as  well. 

The  world  has  about  80,000,000  spindles  in  operation.  France, 
Germany  and  Russia  about  5,000,000  each.  In  India  there  are  about 
150  cotton  mills  with  3,500,000  spindles.  In  Japan  there  are  over  twenty 
mills  in  operation,  and  the  manufacture  is  increasing  with  great  rapidity. 

With  the  establi.shnient  of  cotton  mills  in  the  Southern  States  our 
growth  in  cotton  manufacture  is  likely  to  continue,  and  with  a  return  to 
protection  and  a  restoration  of  a  home  market  it  w'ill  not  be  many  years 
before  we  shall  overtake  England  in  the  product  of  our  cotton  spindles. 
As  for  a  foreign  market  of  any  value,  we  cannot  obtain  it  as  long  as  we 
pay  117  per  cent  higher  wages  than  England.  Our  exports  have  not 
changed  in  ten  years.  For  the  present,  at  least,  the  home  market  under 
a  protective  tariff  with  an  adequate  duty  on  all  grades  of  cotton  goods 
to  cover  the  difference  in  cost  of  manufacture,  will  suffice  to  sustain  our 
great  cotton  industry  and  continue  its  progress. 

The  following  table,  showing  the  difference  of  wages  in  American  and 
English  cotton  mills,  was  compiled  by  William  Whitman,  Jr.,  of  Westerly, 
R.  I.,  and  the  comparisons  are  drawn  from  two  mills,  one  in  Bolton, 
I^ancashire,  England,  the  other  in  New  England,  with  both  of  which  he 
had  been  connected: 


CL.tss  OF  Help. 


Boss  pickers,     .    .    . 

Helpers 

Boss  carder,  .  .  . 
Second  hand,  .  .  . 
Card  grinders,  .    . 

Card  boy, 

Card  girl, 

Comber  tenders,  .    . 
Silver  lap  tenders,   . 
Ribbon  lap  tenders, 
Drawing  lap  tenders, 
Slabbing  lap  tenders, 
Inter  lap  tenders, 
Roving  lap  tenders, 
Jack  lap  tenders, 
Mule  spinners,     .    . 
Mule  overseer,      .    . 
Mule  back  boy,    .    . 

Engineer 

Fireman, 

Machinist 

Packer, 

•Comber  overseer. 
Boss  warehouse,   .    . 


dill  ;  English  mill. 


Itl.oo 
6.00 
24.00 
15.00 
11.00 
5.00 
3-75 
7.00 
5.00 
5-50 
6.00 
6.50 
7- 50 
8.00 
S.55 
i5.oo 
24.00 
3.00 
iS.oo 
13.00 
15.00 
10.00 
15.00 
14.00 


Total, I257.80 


Page  a6i,  Bulletin,  i 


15.04 
2.40 
8.64 
6.50 
504 
2.40 
2.16 
3-48 
2.16 
2.76 
3.00 
3-48 
348 

4.20 
9.12 
9.60 
1.92 
7.20 
6.00 
6.72 
5-04 
7.20 
7.20 


I118.72 


15-96 
3.60 

15-36 
8.50 
5-96 
2.60 
1-59 
3-52 
2.84 
2-74 
3.00 
3.02 
4.02 
4.02 
4-35 
6.88 

14.40 


10.  S 


4.96 
7.80 
6.80 


TAB  IFF  QVESriOX  IX  THE  UXITED  ."STATES. 


O  O  O  Q  O  O  CTv 


t^     VD  ■*  CO 


S  S  S  P  2sJ 
o  8  ^  "  K  c 


ro  -^tvo  o  o  *.t  in 


i, u     5>3  i?«^  ' 


8  6  -  VD  (N  Q  ^ 
O  O  O  1-  «  O  " 

§"  8'  t^  si  ^  R  " 
_  q  a*  .^  o^o^  lo 

ON  ro  O""  O'  ro  r^  O 


pvO  t^CC  CO 


i 

t?^^;f^l 

i 

|8Sg>k 

1 
> 

l^pJ'lll 

^mm 

Q. 

^6 

i^l^E^ 

11 

K 
§ 
s 

36,058,000 
159,469  000 
150,178,000 
'  24,403,000 
352,042,000 
367,602,000 

1 
1 

§§§§§§§ 

s 

^1 

lil^ES 

3! 
1 

1 

Is 

till tit 

TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  difference  in  favor  of  the  English  manufac- 
turer is  117  per  cent  in  labor  cost.  Besides  this  he  has  the  most  efficient 
machinery  in  use,  abundant  capital,  long  established  markets  and  trade 
relations,  and  artisans  as  skillful  as  any  in  the  world.  The  advantage 
derived  from  labor  cost  alone  enables  the  British  manufacturer  to 
undersell  the  American  in  every  foreign  market,  and  if  our  duties  were 
removed  we  should  be  compelled  to  reduce  our  wages  to  the  British  level 
or  close  our  mills.  It  has  been  proven  in  preceding  chapters  by  the  evi- 
dence of  English  manufacturers,  that  we  not  only  owe  the  establishment 
of  this  industry  to  protection,  but  that  without  protection  it  would  be 
ruined. 

This  is  true  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  is  an  old  industry; 
that  it  has  received  the  most  constant  and  highest  protection  of  all  indus- 
tries, and  that  there  has  been  attracted  to  it  abundant  capital,  and  our 
ablest  and  most  competent  manufacturers,  who  have  placed  it  on  the  most 
efficient  basis,  so  far  as  the  best  machinery,  the  latest  and  most  approved 
appliances  are  concerned.  Again,  it  has  the  advantage  of  free  raw  mate- 
rial, as  cheap  raw  material  as  the  industry  of  any  country.  Yet  we  can- 
not pay  117  per  cent  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in  England  and  make 
goods  as  cheaply  as  they  can.  It  is  all  nonsense  to  talk  about  the  supe- 
riority of  our  labor  when  many  of  our  operatives  came  from  England, 
where  they  learned  their  trades.  If  our  manufacturers  could  make  goods 
cheaper  than  they  can  be  made  in  England,  they  would  be  quite  as  apt  to 
find  it  out  as  the  free  trade  agitators.  Our  manufacturers  are  anxious  to 
extend  their  business,  and  if,  in  fact,  they  could  make  goods  cheaper  than 
foreign  rivals,  they  would  be  shipping  their  fabrics  to  South  America  and 
other  points  as  accessible  to  them  as  to  any  one.  Customers  would  be 
found,  goods  sold  and  our  exports  would  increase,  but  this  has  not  been 
done  and  cannot  be  done  so  long  as  they  pay  117  per  cent,  or  more  than 
double  the  wages  paid  in  England.  This  fact,  well  understood  by  the 
cotton  trade  of  the  entire  world,  is  questioned  only  by  the  free  trade 
agitators. 

Knit  goods  though  classified  in  the  census  imder  woolen  manufactures 
come  properly  under  cotton.  In' 1850  there  were  but  85  knitting  mills 
in  this  country.  In  1890  there  were  807  paying  $18,000,000  in  wages 
and  producing  $67,000,000  worth  of  fabrics.  In  three  years  under  the 
McKinley  bill  these  807  knitting  mills  had  increased  to  993.  It  was 
almost  impossible  for  hosiery  and  knit  goods  manufacturers  to  get  suffi- 
cient hands  to  meet  the  demands.  And  yet  in  a  single  year  imder  the 
Gorman  tariff  this  condition  has  been  reversed,  and  mills  and  thousands 
of  operatives  are  idle.  The  protection  afforded  by  the  McKinley  bill  is 
necessary  for  the  continuance  of  the  industry  on  anything  like  the 
scale  of  1893.  A  dollar  is  paid  in  Philadelphia  for  precisely  the  same 
service  for  which    a   mark  is   paid   in  the  knitting  mills  of  Germany. 


TARIFF  qVKSTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


But  the  benefit  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  laborers  in  the  industrj- 
itself. 

A  demand  has  been  made  on  American  genius  and  invention  with  the 
result  that  there  has  been  wonderful  development  and  improvement  in  the 
manufacture  of  machinery,  much  of  which  is  now  used  in  European  mills. 
But  for  the  establishment  of  the  knitting  goods  industry  here  neither  we 
nor  our  competitors  in  Europe  would  ha\-e  had  the  machinerj-  now  used 
and  not  only  our  own  people  but  the  people  of  Europe  would  be  paying 
much  higher  prices  for  the  comfortable  clothing  now  obtained  so  reason- 
bly. 

The  lace  curtain  industry  was  hardly  known  in  this  country  till  the 
McKinley  bill  imposed  a  duty  of  60  per  cent  on  fabrics  that  previously  had 
a  duty  of  only  40  per  cent.  In  three  years  instead  of  one  plant  with  12 
machines  there  were  122  machines  capable  of  producing  weekly  from  50,000 
to  100,000  pairs  of  curtains.  Our  manufacturers  were  compelled  to  pay  50 
per  cent  more  for  their  machinery  than  their  foreign  competitors  paid,  as  it 
is  not  yet  constructed  in  this  countrj-.  As  for  the  difference  in  wages  the 
following  table  shows  the  prices  paid  for  labor  in  Scotland  and  the 
United  States  : 


Scotch  labor 
(per  week) 

Fixers,  men f  10.00 

Weavers,  men 6.00 

Shuttlers,  boys, $1.50102.50 

Brass  winders,  females 2.50 

Menders,   females, 3.50 

Winders,  females, 3-00 

Operators,  females, 3-0O 

Odd  lielp,  females,      2.00 


|;20.oo 
f  12.00  to  $15.00 
4.00  to  6.00 
"6.00  to  7.00 
^.00  to  9.00 
6.00  to  8.00 
6.00  to  S.oo 
4.00  to    8.00 


And  with  the  increased  duty  and  the  increased  employment  of 
labor  came  a  reduction  of  25  per  cent  in  the  price  of  lace  curtains. 
Messrs.  Cleland  &  Campbell,  of  the  Columbia  (Pa.)  Lace  Company,  who 
also  operate  a  factory  in  Scotland,  declared  that  if  the  McKinley  bill  had 
remained  in  force  another  year  seven-eighths  of  the  lace  manufactories  of 
Nottingham  and  Scotland  would  now  be  located  in  America.  Bttt  the 
duty  was  made  45  per  cent  by  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  and  like  scores  of 
other  industries  that  of  lace  curtains  hangs  in  the  balance. 

Mr.  Cleland,  the  senior  partner  of  the  above-mentioned  firm,  talked 
freely  to  a  newspaper  correspondent  in  1892,  as  follows: 

We  had  to  come.  We  were  knocked  out  completely  by  the  raising  of  the 
duty.  America  is  the  greatest  consumer  of  lace  curtains  in  the  world.  There  are 
more  people  here  than  in  any  other  country  who  can  afford  to  have  lace  curtains  in 
their  homes.     So,  when  the  American  market  was  closed  to  us  there  was  nothing 


TEXTILE  A^^D  OTHER  IXDUSTHIES. 


for  us  to  do  but  to  get  inside  of  the  tariff  fence.  If  President  Harrison  is  elected, 
as  I  most  earnestly  hope  he  will  be,  there  will  be  lots  of  other  concerns  in  our  line 
of  business  who  will  move  over  also.  We  are  loaded  down  with  orders  for  months 
ahead,  and  the  outlook  is  good  for  a  most  prosperous  business  in  spite  of  the  high 
wages  we  must  pay. 

As  to  wages,  we  will  have  to  pay  more  than  double  what  we  did  in  Scotland. 
The  men  who  tend  the  machines  we  paid  over  there  24  shillings  a  week — about  J6 
in  3'our  money.  Here  we  must  pay  them  $15  a  week.  The  same  proportion  runs 
through  the  whole  scale.  As  to  the  cost  of  living,  it  is  not  much  greater  here  than 
in  Scotland,  with  the  exception  of  rents.  But  even  that  difference  is  not  as  great 
as  it  seems,  because  the  accommodations  here  are  so  infinitely  superior.  There 
families  live  in  two  rooms,  a  kitchen  and  a  bed-room.  Here  we  are  building  a  row 
of  houses  for  our  workmen  with  four  rooms  each.  Where  the  men  paid  $3  a  month 
rent  over  there  they  will  pay  f8  here,  but  the  quarters  are  three  times  as  comfort- 
able. The  prices  of  food  are  about  the  same  in  both  countries.  Clothes  are  a  little 
higher,  but  that  is  compensated  for  by  the  fact  that  they  don't  need  as  heavy 
clothes  here.  Some  of  my  men  bought  a  lot  of  clothes  before  they  came  over,  and 
now  find  them  so  heavy  they  can't  wear  them  here.  In  fact,  they  laid  in  a  stock  of 
ever}'tliing,  down  to  pipes  and  matches,  on  the  supposition  that  prices  were 
so  much  higher  here,  and  now  they  find  in  many  cases  that  they  could  get  better 
things  for  their  money  in  this  country.  In  short,  they  can  live  here  on  the  money 
they  earned  in  the  old  country  and  save  the  difference  between  wages  there  and  here. 

We  are  all  delighted  with  America,  and  have  received  the  kindest  welcome 
here.  For  myself,  I  haven't  been  homesick  a  day  Now  that  I  am  a  resident  of 
the  United  States  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  Republican  principles  and  the  policy  of 
protection.  In  the  lace  business  it's  the  only  thing  that  protects  you  from 
the  competition  of  the  old  countries.  If  it  were  not  for  the  duty  there  wouldn't 
be  a  bobbin  turning  in  this  country.  I  presume  the  same  holds  good  in  other 
industries. 

Wool  and  its  manufacture  in  the  United  States  are  so  closely  identi- 
fied as  to  warrant  their  being  treated  together.  Without  our  woolen  mills 
our  sheep  industry  would  amount  to  but  little.  Without  our  sheep  and 
their  wool  our  woolen  mills  would  be  at  a  great  disadvantage.  As  early  as 
1657  protection  was  afforded  to  wool  and  woolens  in  Virginia  by  prohibit- 
ing transportation  of  sheep  out  of  the  colony  and  by  a  bounty  of  five  pounds 
of  tobacco  for  every  yard  of  woolen  cloth  made  in  the  colony.  Various  laws 
were  made  for  the  encouragement  of  the  woolen  industry  up  to  the  Revolu- 
tion. 

It  was  not  till  1816,  however,  that  a  duty  was  imposed  on  wool  and 
from  that  time  till  the  Gorman- Wilson  tariff  of  1894  the  whole  duty  has  never 
been  removed,  though  certain  grades  were  admitted  free  under  the  laws 
of  1833  and  1857.  The  industry  was  of  slow  growth  up  to  i860.  In  1840 
we  had  19,000,000  sheep  and  during  the  next  twenty  years  under  a  revenue 
duty  the  number  increased  only  3,000,000  while  in  the  next  twentj'-five 
years  under  protection  the  number  had  increased  to  50,000,000,  a  gain  of 
125  per  cent.  The  subject  of  sheep  and  wool  has  been  treated  somewhat 
in  detail  elsewhere.  To  show  our  progress  in  the  manufacture  of  woolens 
the  following  table  is  appended  : 


IVooland 
mavufac- 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Effect  of 
tariff  legh- 

7vool  ajid 
woolens. 


Manufacture  and  Importation  of  Woolens. 


1820, 
1830, 
1S40, 
1850, 
1S60, 

i8So[ 


Domestic  manufactures. 


$4,413,068 
14,528,166 
20,696,999 
43.207,545 
65>596.364 
177-495,689 
267,252,913 
338,231,109 


I  .46 
.88 
.82 


$7,238,954 
8,290,062 
13.950,772 
^3,005,852 
31.333,273 
33,046,521 
39.537.694 
54,165,422 


Percentage 
of  total  con- 


On  no  branch  of  American  industry  has  the  tariff  so  much  effect  as 
on  wool  and  woolens.  This  has  been  shown  most  clearly  in  the  last  five 
years.  The  effect  of  a  most  judicious  adjustment  of  duties  by  the 
McKinley  bill  was  the  running  of  every  mill  in  the  country  at  full  time, 
and  in  many  cases  at  over  time.  In  the  year  ending  June  30,  1893,  the 
importations  of  raw  wool  were  thp  largest  ever  known,  and  amounted  to 
1 68 ,000,000  pounds.  Our  mills  consumed  not  only  all  of  our  own  products, 
but  this  168,000,000  pounds  of  foreign  wool  besides.  As  our  imports  of 
manufactures  did  not  materially  increase,  it  proved  clearly  an  increase  in 
the  demands  of  the  American  market,  and  yet  the  price  of  clothing  was 
lower  than  ever  before.  But  the  menace  of  free  wool  and  lower  duties  on 
woolens  turned  all  this  -prosperity  of  both  producer  and  consumer  into 
disaster  and  ruin.  The  Commercial  Bulletin  of  Boston  sums  up  the 
situation  as  follows: 

In  all  lines  of  business  1893  will  be  remembered  as  a  year  of  agony.  In  the 
wool  trade  it  has  been  a  more  fearful  succession  of  disaster  and  breakdown  than 
could  have  been  imagined.  During  the  year  the  price  of  wool  has  been  reduced 
almost  one-half.  Shut-downs,  cut  wages,  strikes  and  failures  have  been  the  daily 
pabulum  for  ten  months  of  the  last  twelve. 

Yet  this  year  opened  more  prosperously  from  a  commercial  standpoint  than  any 
we  have  known.  An  unprecedented  condition  of  prosperity  has  in  twelve  months 
been  converted  to  an  unprecedented  condition  of  adversit)'.  Financial  disturbances 
helped,  but  the  one  primal  cause  of  this  wide-reaching  suffering  is  the  vote  of  the 
American  people  in  November,   1892,  in  favor  of  breaking  protective  tariff. 

The  effect  of  the  reduced  duties  under  the  act  of  1883  in  stimulating 
employment  of  business  in  Bradford.  Kngland,  may  be  .seen  from  the 
following  table,  compiled  from  the  reports  of  the  Hon.  John  A.  Tibbit, 
United  States  Consul: 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Exports  from  Bradford  to  United  States  in  1S83  and  1890. 

1SS3.  1890. 

Camel's  hair  tops 159.332  I446.275 

Card  clothing 25,120  65,960 

Carpets  and  rugs, 272,686  303.037 

Cotton  goods 51.663  169,189 

Cow  and  calf  hair, 1,191  65,891 

Hair  cloths, 120,709  12,127 

Hemp  bagging, .    .    .    •  394 

Machinery, 207,298  468,796 

Mohair  goat's  hair 28,191  223,071 

Noils, 39.451  114,042 

Shawls,  etc.,      ii,450  16,441 

Shoddy ...  7,724 

Silk,  silk  seals,  plushes,  etc 54,iSS  2,244,311 

Silk  waste, 37.372  19.590 

Stuff  goods 6,239,074  10,601,794 

Tapestry,  damask,  etc 13.330  20,357 

Waste,  worsted, 386,500  445,152 

Wool,      886,988  1,338,061 

Woolen  goods, 245,953  271,775 

Worsted  coatings, 1,603,011  5,310,107 

Yarns,  worsted, 312,675  914,123 

Yarns,  mohair, ...  174.779 

Yarns,  other, ...  120,453 

Total, 110,596,182         ^23,353, 449 

It  was  the  constantly  increasing  imports  of  such  articles  which,  in 
1890,  prompted  the  protectionist  party  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
to  raise  the  duties  on  those  articles  in  order  that  they  might  be  made 
in  American  factories  by  American  labor.  The  result  of  such  legislation 
has  been  the  decline  in  imports  of  some  of  the  principal  articles  from 
Bradford,  England,  as  shown  by  the  report  of  the  United  States  Consul, 
Hon.  John  A.  Tibbit,  as  follows: 

Imports  During  the  Twelve  Months  Closing  June  30,  i8go,  and  June  30, 
1891. 

iSgo.  1891. 

Stuffs $2,178,524  $    957.907 

Worsted  coatings, 1,091,153  518,425 

Woolen  goods, 55,845  24,380 

Carpets  and  rugs, 62,270  24,386 

Silks,  seals  and  plushes 461,176  62,270 

Worsted  and  mohair  yarns 187,138  41,628 

Total 1:4,036,106  Jr, 628, 996 

The  increase  of  duties  in  1890,  which  checked  imports  into  the  United 
States,  was  met  by  the  British  manufacturers  in  their  struggle  to  hold  a 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


share  of  the  market  by  a  reduction  in  wages.  It  was  in  the  face  of  such 
recent  results  and  experience  that  the  free  trade  party  in  the  United 
vStates  Congress,  through  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill  of  1894,  reduced  the 
duties  on  woolen  goods  to  a  point  much  below  the  act  of  1883.  This 
could  only  have  been  done  for  the  definite  and  specific  purpose  of  placing 
the  American  woolen  market  in  the  hands  of  British  manufacturers.  The 
revival  of  business,  which  is  now  going  on  in  the  Bradford  district,  is 
solely  the  result  ^f  such  legislation.  With  their  cheap  labor,  efficient 
machinery  and  vast  facilities  for  manufacturing,  the  English  manufactu- 
rers can  supply  the  entire  Ameri'^an  market  and  completely  supplant  the 
vast  industry  which  has  been  built  up  and  maintained  by  the  system  of 
protection.  It  is  apparent,  from  the  evidence  of  English  manufacturers 
given  elsewhere,  that  they  will  be  benefited  bj'  the  recent  work  of  the  free 
trade  party  in  the  United  States  and  that  the  people  of  this  country,  under 
their  present  wage  rate,  are  powerless,  even  under  low  import  duties,  to 
resist  an  inundation  of  the  American  markets  of  the  goods  made  by  the 
low  paid  labor  of  England. 

Not  only  does  the  injury  fall  upon  our  manufacturers  and  operatives, 
but  the  sheep  owner  is  deprived  of  a  market  for  his  wool,  thereby  decreas- 
ing his  income  and  means  to  purchase  manufactures.  Here  again  is  shown 
the  interdependence  of  all  our  industries.  A  blow  to  one  injures  all.  The 
loss  is  felt  throughout  the  land.  Transportation  suffers.  Capital  is  idle. 
Labor  is  unemployed.  Not  only  does  the  individual  suffer,  but  there  is 
loss  of  national  revenue  and  national  wealth. 

But  it  is  not  to  England  alone  that  we  must  look  for  an  invasion  of 
our  markets.  Germany,  France  and  Belgitmr  are  successfully  contesting 
neutral  markets  with  English  manufacturers.  Under  the  shield  of  protec- 
tion their  home  markets  are  made  secure,  while  a  vast  surplus  is  being 
poured  into  England.  How  shallow  and  senseless  becomes  the  talk  indulged 
in  by  the  United  States  free  traders  of  our  capturing  the  markets  of  the 
world.  When  the  scheme  is  unmasked  it  is  found  that  the  United  States 
markets  are  the  ones  which  will  be  captured. 

To  show  exactly  what  we  must  contend  against  the  following  table  is 
given  showing  the  wages  in  the  worsted  industrj'  in  Massachusetts,  Eng- 
land, France  and  Belgium;  the  wages  in  Germany  being  about  the  same 
as  Belgium.  The  table  is  valuable  for  the  reason  that  it  was  prepared  by 
Mr.  F.  W.  Hobbs,  of  Boston,  after  months  of  thorough  investigation  in  all 
the  countries  named  and  because  a  specific  industry  was  taken,  the  wages 
in  every  case  representing  the  same  grade  of  labor  and  same  grade  of 
work: 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Overlookers  (English  SystemJ, 
Yarn  Inspectors,  ... 

Spinners  ifull  time),  ... 
Spinners  (two  half  timers),  . 
Overlookers  (mule),      .... 

Spinners  (mule), 

Coffers  (head), 

DoflFers, 

Takers-oflF, 

Cleaners,      

Tape  fixers 

Boy  helpers 

Wool  Sorters : 

Average  earnings, 

Wcaiung: 

Overlookers 

Assistant  Overlookers,    ... 

Weavers 

.Machine  and  Repair  Shop  : 

Carpenters, 

Machinists, 

Blacksmiths, 

Stokers 

Engineers,  

Washing  : 

Overlookers,       

Washers,      

Carding  : 

Overlookers 

Grinders  and  Strippers,  .    .    . 

Carders 

Combing  : 

Overlookers,       

Assistant  Overlookers,     .    .    . 

Backwashers,  

Gill  Box 

Bailers 

Comb  Binders, 

Finishers,    .    .        .    . 
l'>rawing  and  Roving  : 

Overlookers, 

Assistant  Overlookers,     .    .    . 

2  Can  Gill  Box 

2  Spindle  Gill  Box,     .... 

4         "       Draw  Box,      .    .    . 

8        "       Weigh  Box,        .    . 

8        "       First  Finisher,  .    . 

8  "  Second  Finisher, 
30         "       Reducer,      .... 

30         "       Roving, 

Drawing  and  Roving 
(French  System): 

Overlookers 

Assistant  Overlookers, 

Gill  Box 

Second  Gill  Box,  .    . 
Roving,  .... 

Second  Roving,     .    .    . 


i|i3-5o 

1     7-5° 

]     6.00 

I     6.00 

15.00 

13-50 

4.S0 

4.20 

4.50 

4.  So 

6.90 

4.20 


15-00 
9.00 
7.00 

13-50 
13.20 
12.00 
9.00 
15.00 


16.50 
9.00 
6.60 

'16.50 
9.00 
6.00 


7-50 
5-70 

15.00 
9.00 
6.30 
6.30 
6.60 
6.30 
6.30 
6.30 
6.30 
6.00 


13-50 
7-50 
6.30 


$7-78 
3-S9 
2-43 
1-94 


2.06 
1-94 
1-94 


8.26 

4.36 
3-40 

6.80 
7.29 
7.29 
4-37 
7.29 

8.75 
4.62 

9.72 
4-37 
3-04 

9.00 
5-58 
2.92 
2.67 
2.67 
3-40 
2.92 

8.75 
4-37 
2.79 
2-79 
2.67 
2.67 
2.55 
2.55- 
2-43 
2.43 


9S-5 
Si. I 
64.6 
105-9 
105.8 


69.7 
106.0 
117. 1 

S3-3 
61.3 
105-5 
103.5 
124.7 
120.6 
95-2 

71.4 
106.0 
125.8 
125.8 
147.2 
135-9 
147. 1 
147. 1 
159-3 
146.9 


I7-98 
5-13 


73-5 
92.8 
146.9 
209.3 


133-0 
116.5 
132.0 

250.5 

244-3 


8i.6  7.70 
106.4  I  4-56 
105.9  1     4-56 


5-13 
6.S4 
6.84 
4-56 
8-55 

7-98 

3-71 


11.40 
5-70 
3-71 
2-99 

3-42 
3-14 


163.2 


94-8 
97-1 
53-7 

163.2 
93-0 
75-4 
97-4 
75-4 

69.2 
102.2 

107.6 
85.6 
135-7 


57-9 
61.7 
90.7 

"9-3 
87.9 


I4.56 
2.00 


1-15 

5-42 

5-70 
3-42 
3-15 


4-S7 
4.87 
4-57 
4.87 

5-70 

3-42 

5-70 
4-3° 
3-14 

5-70 
3-42 
2-57 


77.6 
57-9 

121. 1 


5-75 
3-42 


2.28 
2.20 


163.2 
227.7 


265.2 

103.0 

163.2 
163.2 
122.2 

177.2 
171.0 
146.4 
96.9 
208.0 

136-9 
119-3 

189-5 
104.4 
no.  2 

189-5 

163.2 

133-4 

150.0 

163.2 
150.0 


134.8 

"9-3 
176.3 
176-3 
186.4 
176-3 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


States  to 
coiHpete 
on  account 
of  tire  high 


Adequate  duties  on  wool  and  woolens  show  a  different  result  from 
free  wool  and  inadequate  duties  on  woolens.     Here  are  the  two  results  : 


1891-92. 
Under  McKinley  Bii,l. 

American  sheep  increasing  in  number. 
American   mills    running   at   full   and 
over  time.     Work  seeking  workers. 

English  mills  running  at  short  time. 


1894-95- 
Under  Gorm.\n  Bili.. 

American  sheep  decreasing  in  number. 
American  mills  closed  or  running  part 
time.     Workers  seeking  work. 


English  mills  running  full  or  over  time. 


It  has  been  shown  in  a  previous  chapter,  by  the  evidence  of  British 
woolen  manufacturers,  that  our  high  wages  make  it  impossible  for  us  to 
compete  with  England.  Mr.  Henry  Mitchel,  member  of  the  Bradford 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  testified  in  a  passage  already  quoted  (p.  256), 
that  ' '  labor  is  much  higher  in  the  United  States  .  .  .  they  are  never 
likely  to  be  serious  competitors  with  us."  This  fact  is  well  understood 
by  the  British  manufacturers.  Mr.  Mitchel  also  showed  that  the  slight 
reduction  in  import  duties  of  15  per  cent,  in  18S3,  was  the  cause  of  the 
increased  imports  from  England  to  the  United  States  from  1883  to  1890. 
This  slight  reduction  increased  imports  from  $35,000,000  in  1885  to 
over  $54,000,000  in  1890.  When  duties  were  raised  by  the  McKinley 
bill  the  imports  dropped,  in  two  years,  down  to  $35,000,000  again. 
A  reduction  of  duties  of  15  per  cent  in  1883  gave  increased  employ- 
ment to  foreign  labor,  while  an  advance  in  duties  in  1890,  placed  over 
$21,000,000  a  year  in  the  pockets  of  American  la-borers  and  manu- 
facturers. Again  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill  has  reduced  the  duties  below 
the  rate  of  1883  and  foreign  mills  are  busy  and  American  mills  are  idle, 
but  this  is  a  source  of  satisfaction  to  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  a-ssociates. 
This  is  the  identical  result  which  they  intended  to  bring  about.  It  is 
idle  to  discuss  the  effect  of  high  tariffs  or  low  tariffs  on  American  indus- 
tries, when  there  is  no  dispute  between  free  traders  and  protectionists 
upon  this  point.  Mr.  Cleveland,  Mr.  Wilson  and  all  the  leaders  of  the 
free  trade  party  know  as  well  as  the  British  manufacturers  that  employers 
in  the  United  States  cannot  pay  over  loo  per  cent  higher  wages  to  labor 
and  compete  with  foreign  producers.  They  know  that  it  cannot  be 
done  even  with  free  wool.  That  if  American  manufacturers  buy  their 
wool  in  Australia  or  in  the  London  market  so  far  as  the  raw  material 
is  concerned  they  are  simply  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  Britisli 
manufacturers,  and  that  there  is  still  the  difference  of  over  100  per  cent 
in  wages  standing  in  favor  of  the  foreigner.  This  talk  of  free  wool,  of 
our  capturing  foreign  markets  has  been  a  sham  from  the  beginning.  The 
purpose  of  the  whole  movement  has  been  to  ruin  the  American  industry, 
sheep  and  all,  and  to  turn  the  American  markets  over  to  aliens.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  is  being  accomplished  and  is  what  was  expected  by  every  one, 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTBIES. 


excepting  those  who  ha\-e  allowed  themselves  to  be  deceived  by  the  mis- 
representations of  free  traders. 

American  homes  are  the  best  carpeted  in  the  world.  The  first  Ameri- 
can carpet  was  made  in  Philadelphia.  In  1810  about  10,000  j'ards  of  car- 
peting were  made  in  the  United  States.  In  i860,  13,285,921  yards  were 
made,  valued  at  $7,857,630,  while  in  1890  the  product  had  reached  over 
80,000,000  yards,  valued  at  $50,000,000.  The  progress  from  1850  to  i860 
amounted  to  very  little,  all  the  growth  of  this  great  industry  having  taken 
place  under  the  protective  tariffs  since  that  time.  Our  carpet  exports  in 
1893  amounted  to  less  than  $75,000  in  value,  showing  again  the  value  of  a 
home  market  that  practically  consumes  our  entire  output.  A  duty  of  7J2 
per  cent  was  put  on  carpets  in  1790.  This  was  gradually  increased  till 
1824  when  a  specific  rate  was  levied  and  continued  till  1846,  when  an  ad 
valorem  dut}-  was  again  imposed.  In  186 1  a  change  was  made  again  to 
specific  rates  by  difierent  grades  and  qualities.  The  tariff  did  not  recognize 
carpet  wool  as  such  till  1 867.  At  present  we  produce  only  about  7  per  cent 
of  our  consumption  of  this  wool,  which  is  about  80,000,000  pounds  annually. 
That  we  could  with  adequate  protection  produce  the  whole  of  this  is  clearly 
shown  elsewhere.  In  twent)'-five  years  the  prices  of  all  grades  of  carpets  ha\'e 
been  reduced  over  one-half,  and  the  quality  and  durability  have  been  con- 
stantly improved.  And  yet  our  carpet  industry  paying  over  $1 2 ,000,000  an- 
nualh-  in  wages  and  producing  fabrics  at  prices  within  the  reach  of  all  was 
b\-  the  Gorman- Wilson  tariff  marked  as  one  of  the  industries  to  be  crippled. 
Tapestries  and  velvet  grades  cannot  be  made  in  this  country-  under  a  low 
tariff  at  any  rate  of  wages  however  low.  Ingrains  cannot  be  profitably  made 
without  a  reduction  of  wages  to  the  level  of  English  wages,  which  are  less 
than  half  the  rates  paid  in  this  country. 

The  reader  may  be  interested  in  the  following  paragraphs  taken  from 
the  report  of  G.  W.  Roosevelt,  United  States  Consul  at  Brussels,  1889: 

I  may  add  that  carpets  were  never  manufactured  at  Brussels,  but  in  former  years 
beautiful  tapestry  used  for  wall  decoration  was  made  here.  This  industry,  however, 
no  longer  exists,  the  disappearance  of  which  is  attributed  to  the  English,  who 
adopted  the  designs  and  imitated  them  in  carpets  which  they  introduced  to  the 
trade  as  "Brussels  tapestry  carpets;"  hence  the  origin  of  the  name  Brussels  carpets. 

The  so-called  Brussels  carpets,  manufactured  in  England,  are  placed  upon  this 
market  at  a  much  lower  rate  than  the  same  articles  can  be  produced  in  Belgium  ; 
consequently  England  supplies  this  market,  and  Belgian  dealers  exporting  carpets 
furnish  foreign  markets  with  English  goods. 

The  American  Brussels  carpets  which  once  sold  at  $1.50  and  $2  per 
yard  retail  can  now  be  had  for  75  cents  per  yard  and  can  be  found  in 
almost  every. home  in  the  land.  ■  Once  our  own  industry  is  destroyed  and 
England  gains  possession  of  our  market  the  price  will  again  exceed  one 
dollar.  It  will  not  be  lower.  Free  trade  in  carpets  means  less  wages  or 
no  wages  and  a  higher  price  for  the  article  itself. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  attack  under  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill  was  made  upon  our  woolen 
industry  because  imports  could  be  increased  bj-  reducing  duties.  England 
is  now  making  a  large  share  of  our  woolens  for  us,  and  we  are  sending  our 
gold  to  pay  for  them.  She  has  given  up  the  idea  of  gaining  our  iron  market, 
for  the  present,  at  least,  but  it  was  not  difficult  to  destroy  our  woolen 
industry  and  gain  our  market  in  woolen  goods. 

The  subject  of  clothing  has  given  the  free  trader  much  apparent  con- 
cern. He  has  pictured  the  poor  laboring  man  as  being  taxed  to  death  for 
what  he  wears  on  his  back.  The  fact  is  that  the  American  workman  can 
dress  as  cheaply  and  at  the  same  time  as  well  as  the  English  laborer.  In 
1890  the  condition  of  our  men's  clothing  industry  was  as  follows,  com- 
pared with  i860: 


Number  of  establishments, 

Hands  employed 

Wages  paid,      

Material  used, 

Value  of  product,    .... 


4,014  18,65s  365 

114,800  I  243,857  '  112 

$19,856,426  1111,389,672  !  462 

44.149.752  I   179.425,661  I  306 

$80,830,555  1378,022,815.  354 


As  usual  under  protection  labor  gains  the  most.  Nearly,  if  not  quite, 
$350,000,000  in  wages  annually  is  represented  in  the  output  of  this 
industry  in  its  various  processes.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
above  figures  do  not  represent  the  whole  of  our  clothing  industry.  In 
everj^  city  and  town  there  are  custom  tailors  who  give  employment  to 
thousands  of  men  and  women. 

While  on  the  subject  of  clothing  it  will  be  pertinent  to  touch  upon 
the  question  of  shoddy.  What  is  shoddy  ?  It  is  primarily  the  flue  or 
thread  shed  from  cloth  while  weaving,  practically  refuse  matter,  sometimes 
mixed  with  the  basest  of  elements  and  made  up  into  cloth,  if  we  may  dig- 
nify it  by  that  name.  It  is  purely  a  free  trade  fabric.  This  is  no  idle 
assertion,  but  is  proven  by  the  following  table  of  imports: 

Imports  of  Shoddy. 


s.r„^^- 

Value. 

Duty  per  pound. 

1890 

4,980,327 

1,185,591 

262,992 

333.376 

143,002 

14,066,054 

12,052,078 
429,870-1 
87,825   , 
106,596 
47,522  J 
1,980,464 

10  cents—  old  duty. 

IS9I                

30  cents— McKinley  bill. 

1894, 

1895          

15  cents— Gornian-Wilson  bill. 

TEXTILE  AXD  OTIIEK  IXDVSTltlES. 


The  Republican  duty  was  almost  prohibitive,  and  in  those  times  we 
had  but  little  use  for  it.  If  the  material  were  sold  as  shoddy  there 
might  be  some  excuse  for  the  use  of  a  limited  amount,  but  it  is  sent  here 
as  woolens,  and  many  buy  it  when  they  might  be  wearing  for  the  same 
price  honest  goods  made  by  American  workmen. 

The  whole  woolen  industry  question  could  be  no  better  explained 
than  in  the  following  extract  from  the  London  Financial  News  of  October 
8,  1S95: 

The  great  prosperity  of  the  wool  trades  has,  fortunately,  more  than  offset  the 
retrogression  in  cotton,  though  that  reflection  brings  small  consolation  to  Lanca- 
shire. The  total  gain  for  the  nine  months  under  yarns  and  textiles  is  |i6,4S8,,;75, 
and  as  the  value  of  woolen  tissues  taken  by  the  United  States  has  been  about  ^4,- 
750,000  and  of  worsted  tissues  nearly  $15, 000, 000  greater  than  in  1894,  no  further 
search  for  the  origin  of  the  improvement  in  the  trade  returns  need  be  made.  The 
lowering  of  the  American  tariff  has  been  our  salvation,  and  it  cannot  be  said  that 
we  have  shown  much  reciprocity ;  for,  instead  of  taking  the  increased  value  of  our 
shipments  across  the  Atlantic  in  kind,  we  seem  to  have  bought  less  American  pro- 
duce. It  is  needless  to  go  beyond  our  own  board  of  trade  returns  to  find  an  expla- 
nation of  a  good  deal  of  the  monetary  trouble  in  the  United  States. 

Practically  every  penny  that  was  subscribed  here  toward  the  recent  American 
loan  has  been  got  back  through  the  extension  in  the  exports  of  woolens  and 
worsteds ;  but  the  United  States  has  not  confined  her  increased  purchases  to  those  arti- 
cles. Last  month  she  bought  less  raw  wool  than  in  September,  1894,  but  had  to  pay 
more  for  it.  She  took  more  cotton  pieces,  more  iron,  more  alkali  and  more  of  sun- 
dry articles  which  need  not  be  specified.  In  some  instances  the  rapid  growth  of  the 
preceding  months  resulted  in  a  slight  check  in  September,  but  in  all  these  cases 
the  figures  of  the  nine  months  show  a  big  advance  on  1S94.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  have  paid  a  good  deal  less  for  American  wheat,  flour,  bacon,  hams,  cheese, 
tallow  and  cotton,  to  mention  only  tho.se  articles  in  which  the  contraction  is  most 
apparent. 

This  is  the  result  of  a  partial  triumph  of  free  trade.  It  fulfills  the 
prediction  of  protection i.sts  and  is  not  disappointing  to  free  traders. 

In  1850  the  total  product  of  our  silk  mills  was  valued  at  less  than 
$2,000,000.  In  i860  it  had  increased  to  $6,607,741,  and  in  1890  it  had 
reached  the  value  of  $87,298,454.  Under  the  additional  stimulus  of  the 
McKinley  bill  it  probably  exceeded  $100,000,000  in  1892.  In  1890  the 
capital  invested- was  over  $50,000,000  and  $20,000,000  were  paid  in  wages. 
Three  million  dozens  of  silk  handkerchiefs  alone  were  made.  Before  1840 
there  was  practically  no  silk  industry  here.  It  had  gained  but  little  by  i860. 
But  in  1 86 1  a  duty  of  60  per  cent  on  silk  manufactures  was  imposed  and 
the  growth  of  tlie  industry  has  been  rapid  till  1893.  We  not  only  consume 
all  we  make  but  import  nearly  half  as  much  more.  Americans  not  only  have 
carpeted  floors  while  foreigners  walk  on  boards,  we  not  only  have  papered 
walls  and  lace  curtains,  our  men  and  boys  not  only  wear  better  clothes,  but 
our  wives  and  daughters  wear  more  and  better  silks  than  any  other  women 
on  earth.     We  now  make  the  best  silks  worn.     In  thirty-five  years  we 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Effect  of 
tariff 


have  overtaken  and  passed  in  the  quality  of  silk  fabrics  nations  with  cen- 
turies the  start  of  us.  But  that  is  not  all.  Silks  of  American  make  can 
now  be  purchased  for  about  one-third  the  price  of  twenty-five  years  ago, 
and  we  have  compelled  the  foreigner  time  and  time  again  to  reduce  his 
prices  to  get  into  our  market.  The  free  trader  tells  us  that  protection 
enhances  prices.  The  American  silk  manufacturer  is  one  of  mauj-  who 
tell  the  free  trader  that  protection  not  only  reduces  the  price  of  the  Ameri- 
can product,  but  the  price  of  the  foreign  product  as  well.  But  there 
is  this  difference  with  the  fall  of  prices,  American  labor  remains  the  same 
or  increases,  while  the  European,  to  gain  our  market,  must  reduce  his 
workman's  wages.  A  glance  at  our  foreign  competitors  in  the  silk  industry 
will  be  interesting.  There  is  England,  where  wages  are  one-third  those  in 
the  United  States.  There  are  France  and  Germany,  where  wages  are 
still  lower.  There  is  Italy  where  wages  are  one-fifth.  There  is  Japan 
where  wages  are  one-tenth,  and  there  are  India  and  China,  where  wages  are 
one-twentieth.  These  are  our  rival  silk  workers,  with  generations  of 
experience  and  with  machinery  equal  to  ours.  The  Japanese  have  4000 
.silk  looms  of  the  most  improved  pattern.  And  with  these  must  we  com- 
pete. England,  however,  has  ceased  to  be  a  strong  competitor,  for  the 
French  and  German  manufactures  have  flooded  her  markets  and  almost 
crushed  out  her  silk  industry.  With  free  trade  in  the  United  States  we 
should  experience  the  same  results. 

As  has  been  shown  before,  the  benefits  of  a  protective  tariff  do  not  stop 
with  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  an  industry  itself.  In  all  tex- 
tile industries  intricate  and  delicate  machinery'  plays  a  most  important 
part.  In  the  decade  from  1880  to  1890  our  silk  output  increased  from 
$40,000,000  to  nearly  $90,000,000.  This  created  a  demand  for  improved 
machinery.  How  this  was  met  is  shown  by  Robert  P.  Porter  in  Census 
Bulletin  No.  384,  as  follows: 

The  number  of  spindles  employed  in  silk  manufacture  has  increased  from  508,- 
137  in  1880  to  1,254,798  in  i8go,  an  increase  of  746,661,  or  146.9  per  cent. 

Even  more  noteworthy  than  this  great  increase  in  the  number  of  spindles  is  the 
rapid  disappearance  of  the  old-time  cumbersome  hand  looms,  which  are  being 
superseded  by  the  power  loom,  the  inventive  genius  of  the  age  having  produced 
marvelous  improvements  in  both  mechanism,  speed  and  artistic  effects.  At  the 
census  of  18S0,  3152  hand  looms  were  employed  as  against  1747  in  1890,  a  decrease 
of  1406,  or  44.59  per  cent.  In  1890,  20,822  power  looms  were  employed  as  against 
880,  an  increase  of  15,501,  or  291.32  per   cent.       The   total   number  of  all 


5321 

looms  employed  in  1890  was  : 

or  166.33  P^"^  cent. 


,569, 


against  S474  m 


18S0, 


:  of  14.095. 


The  menace  of  free  trade  in  1893  was  reflected  in  our  silk  industry  in 
common  with  all  others.  Not  more  than  half  the  machinery  was  running 
in  1894  and  that  upon  short  time.  The  Wilson  bill  made  a  severe  cut,  but 
the  duties  were  largely  advanced  iu  the  Senate  bill  which  passed.    A  slight 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


reduction,  however,  is  sometimes  sufBcient  to  cripple  or  destroy  an  indus- 
try, and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  our  silk  industry  can  survive  and  thrive 
under  present  duties.  In  all  but  two  articles  the  duty  is  ad  valorem.  This  is 
serious  indeed.  There  are  no  goods  so  difficult  to  value  as  silks.  Undervalua- 
tion and  fraud  have  and  will  exist  in  the  importations  of  silk  under  ad 
valorem  duties  to  a  greater  degree  than  in  any  other  similar  importations. 
In  one  branch  of  the  silk  industry  the  effect  of  protective  and  free 
trade  legislation  can  be  seen  more  clearly  perhaps  than  in  any  other  busi- 
ness. The  McKinley  bill  imposed  a  duty  on  velvets,  plushes  or  other  pile 
fabrics  containing,  exclusive  of  selvedges,  less  than  75  per  cent  in  weight 
of  silk,  $1.50  per  pound  and  15  per  cent;  containing  75  per  cent  or  more 
in  weight  of  silk,  $3.50  per  pound  and  15  per  cent.  Let  us  follow  the 
effect  in  a  single  instance.  In  1890  there  was  an  establishment  inSaltaire, 
England,  employing  4500  hands,  a  part  of  whom  were  making  these  vel- 
vet and  plush  goods  wholly  for  the  American  trade.  The  McKinley  bill 
went  into  operation  October  6,  1890.  What  was  the  result?  The  English 
mill  shut  down;  not  only  that,  but  Sir  Titus  Salt,  finding  he  could  no 
longer  manufacture  velvets  and  plushes  in  England  for  Americans, 
removed  his  mill,  his  machinery  and  his  workmen  to  America  ;  and,  b)- 
June  I,  1 89 1,  the  works  in  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  were  running  night  and 
day  to  fill  American  orders.  Instead  of  importing  the  goods  we  imported 
the  industry.  And  we  increased  our  home  market  to  the  extent  of  the  ad- 
ditional purchasing  power  of  those  men.  No  American  laborer  was  thrown 
out  of  employment.  On  the  contrar}'  this  very  new  industry  gave  employ- 
ment to  many  American  workmen  at  good  wages.  Those  men  who 
came  from  England  consumed  while  there  say  ten  cents'  worth  of 
American  products  against  ninety  cents  when  they  became  American 
workmen.  Their  wages  in  England  were  $6  to  $7  per  week,  here  they 
were  $13  to  $14  per  week.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  prices  of  these  very 
goods  were  reduced  in  a  single  year  nearly  40  per  cent.  This  is  not  an 
,  isolated  instance..  Other  industries  were  imported  here  by  the  McKinley  bill, 
in  every  case  increasing  our  home  market  for  other  goods,  giving  employ- 
ment to  American  workmen,  reducing  the  price  of  the  article  manufac- 
tured and  keeping  both  goods  and  the  price  paid  for  them  in  this  country. 
Can  any  fair-minded  man  say  that  such  a  result  is  not  advantage- 
ous to  all  concerned  from  the  individual  to  the  nation  itself?  And  yet, 
with  this  very  knowledge,  the  "  reformers  "  of  1894  reduced  the  duty  on 
the  first  grade  of  velvets  and  plushes  mentioned  above  over  20  per  cent 
and  on  the  second  grade  from  $3.50  per  pound  and  15  per  cent  to  $1.50 
per  pound,  a  reduction  of  over  60  per  cent.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Richard 
Pearson,  one  of  the  superintendents  of  the  Bridgeport  factory,  said: 

I  used  to  be  a  free  trader  at  home.  I  believed  in  it;  but  when  I  found  that 
Germany  was  sending  velvets  into  England,  and  practically  shutting  us  out  of  the 
business    right  at  our    own    hearth-stone,   I  got   tired    of  free  trade.     Of   course, 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


German}'  and  France  have  made  velvets  for  centuries,  and  both  countries  are  well 
equipped ;  but  to  have  them  sell  velvets  in  London  more  cheaply  than  we  could 
make  them  at  Saltaire,  disgusted  me  with  free  trade.  I  am  confident  that  we  shall 
be  able  to  make  velvets  here  that  will  meet  with  a  ready  sale.  The'McKinley  bill 
will  permit  us  to  do  so.  Why,  if  it  were  not  for  that  bill,  this  plant  would  be 
still  in  Saltaire.  There  would  have  been  no  inducement  for  us  to  come  here,  but  it 
has  brought  us  here,  and  we  have  come  to  stay.  Of  course,  if  the  McKinley  liill 
should  be  repealed,  we  might  go  back.  The  buildings  are  still  there  and  our 
machinery  could  easily  be  shipped. 

It  is  hardly  probable  that  they  will  go  back  to  free  trade  England, 
but  free  trade  would  send  them  to  France  or  Germany. 

The  best  fibre  and  best  and  handsomest  linen  come  from  Silesia,  a 
province  of  Russia,  where  thej'  save  both  seed  and  fibre.  The  largest 
linen  mill  in  the  world  is  at  Jaradova,  Russia,  where  they  employ  7000 
hands  in  one  mill  and  make  very  fine  linen.  The  climate  and  soil  of 
these  countries  are  identical  with  those  of  the  Northwestern  part  of  the 
United  States.  Within  a  radius  of  400  miles  of  Minneapolis  there  was 
raised  in  1890  over  5,000,000  acres  of  flax,  all  of  which  could  have  been 
worked  into  fibre  and  been  worth  in  cash  to  farmers  over  $9,000,000. 
besides  the  seed.  But  to  encourage  and  develop  the  indtistry  of  preparing 
fibre  from  the  straw  of  flax,  we  must  protect  not  only  the  fibre  itself,  but 
give  still  greater  protection  than  is  now  enjoyed  to  the  manufacture  of  linen 
and  kindred  industries.  To  show  the  necessity  for  this,  the  following 
table  of  comparative  wages  in  this  country  and  European  countries  is 
given: 

Average  Rate  of  Weekly  Wages  Paid  in  the  Flax  Spinning  Trade- 
Europe  AND  America. 


Sorters, 

Roughers,  .  .  .  . 
Machine  workers, 
Spinners,        .    .    . 

Reelcrs 

Rovini^, 

Carders 

Spreaders,       .    .    . 

Drawing 

Doffers, 


|I2.00 


5-00 
6.00 
S.oo 
500 
3-50 


I4.S6 
4. 86 
1.46 

1. 82 

1-34 
1.58 
2.19 
1.70 
1-95 
1-34 


$3.85 

1-35 
2.02 
3-37 
2.02 
2.20 
2.02 
1.85 


1.70 
1.65 
1-55 
1-50 
I-I5 


As  with  .flax  so  it  is  with  hemp,  jute  and  ramie.  India  now  .supplies 
the  United  States  and  all  the  world  with  jute.  It  is  cultivated,  steeped, 
cleaned,  transported,  sorted  and  baled  by  labor  costing  ten  cents  a  da\-. 
The  average  price  of  baled  jute  in  Calcutta  is  two  and  one-half  cents  a 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


pound.  The  soil  and  climate  of  the  South  are  as  well  adapted  to  jute  cul- 
ture aa  those  of  India,  but  a  day's  farm  labor  in  the  South  costs  from  fifty 
to  seventy-five  cents.  We  certainly  can  grow  jute  in  the  United  States, 
for  we  have  already  done  so  to  a  limited  extent.  We  need  only  protection 
against  the  low-priced  labor  of  India  to  enable  us  to  produce  all  that  we 
consume.  Hemp  of  the  very  best  quality,  better,  in  fact,  than  that  pro- 
duced anywhere  else  in  the  world,  has  been  grown  in  America.  Ramie 
has  been  successfully  grown  in  the  Southern  States  and  in  Southern  Cali- 
fornia. 

There  is  no  reason  why  the  United  States  should  not  become  the 
greatest  fibre  producing  country  on  the  globe.  It  would  not  only  add 
millions  of  dollars  to  the  income  of  our  farmers,  many  of  whom  are 
raising  products  at  little  or  no  profit,  but  it  would  stimulate  the 
manufactures  of  these  same  products,  giving  employment  to  labor  at  high 
wages  and  still  further  increasing  the  purchasing  income  of  millions  of 
laborers,  thereby  creating  a  home  market  for  other  products  of  the  farm 
and  factor}'  far  in  excess  of  that  which  is  now  enjoj-ed. 

It  \vould  seem  as  if  the  high  wages  here  would  increase  the  cost  of 
linen  manufactures.  The  contrary  has  been  the  case.  In  linen  threads, 
in  shirts,  in  collars  and  cuffs,  and,  in  fact,  in  every  manufacture  of  linen 
th.e  price  has  fallen  from  one-quarter  to  one-half  in  the  last  thirty  years. 
Flax  and  hemp  were  put  on  the  free  list  by  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill. 
Jute  is  on  the  free  list.  If  our  farmers  were  educated  to  the  importance  of 
fibre  production,  and  the  industry  were  once  established  by  the  adoption 
of  an  adequate  tariff,  the  cost  would  be  reduced,  and  we  would  soon 
supply  not  only  our  own  needs  but  export  to  other  countries. 

Nowhere  can  the  beneficent  effects  of  a  protective  tariff  be  seen  so 
clearly  as  in  connection  with  the  iron  and  steel  industry-.  Mr.  B.  F. 
French,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Iron  Trade  of  the  United  States,"  says: 

It  is  an  established  fact  that  in  many  departments  of  English  industry,  those 
■who  are  interested  will  carry  them  on  at  a  loss  for  years,  to  aid  in  retaining  mar- 
kets from  which  they  are  in  danger  of  being  excluded  by  commercial  restrictions 
or  industrial  competition  ;  and  scarcely  a  branch  of  industry  has  sprung  up  in  the 
United  States  which  has  not,  at  first,  had  to  encounter  a  severe  struggle  in  conse- 
quence of  the  foreign  article  being  reduced  in  price  below  that  with  which  it  had 
been  expected  to  compete. 

In  spite  of  the  handicap  mentioned  by  Mr.  French,  the  iron  and  steel  in- 
dustry of  the  United  States  has  made  remarkable  progress,  particularly  since 
i860.  In  every  branch,  as  soon  as  an  adequate  duty  was  levied,  the  manu- 
facture began,  and  increased  greatly  while  imports  and  prices  decreased 
by  an  almost  constant  ratio.  There  is  little  to  record  prior  to  i860.  Eveiy 
early  attempt  to  manufacture  iron  in  any  form  was  generally  crushed  out 
by  England  in  the  manner  described  by  Mr.  French.  In  1850  the  total 
number  of  hands  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron,  iron  casting 
44 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


and  wrought  iron  was  60,285  and  the  total  value  of  the  product  $60,486,- 
153.     In  1S90  the  value  of  product  was,  $478,687,519. 

While  specific  duties  were  imposed  on  twenty-nine  articles  previous  to 
1846,  in  that  year  duties  were  changed  to  a  uniform  30  per  cent  ad 
valorem  rate,  which  was  reduced  to  24  per  cent  in  1857.  The  immediate 
effect  of  the  tariffs  of  1 842  and  1 846  can  be  seen  from  the  following,  taken 
from  a  volume  printed  in  1850: 

New  Iron  Works  and    Failures  in    Pennsylvania  from   1842  to  1S50 
Inclusive. 


YEAR. 

New  works. 

Failures. 

Year. 

New  works. 

Failures. 

1S43 

1844 

1S45 •     ■      ■ 

1846 

7 
21 
40 

53 

3 

4 

1847 

1848,       

1849 

1850,       

25 

17 
10 

7 

24 
37 
41 
22 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  tariff  of  July  30,  1846,  did  not  go 
into  effect  till  December  i  of  that  year.  The  experience  of  Pennsylvania 
was  that  of  the  whole  country.  On  December  29,  1849,  the  firm  of 
Cooper  &  Hewitt  wrote  a  letter  to  the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce 
which  was  commended  to  the  attention  of  Congress  then  in  session.  An 
extract  from  that  letter  reads  as  follows: 

There  are  one  or  two  positions  in  the  country  which  combine  such  extraordinary 
natural  advantages  with  everj'  superior  quality  as  to  make  them  almost  independ- 
ent of  legislation ;  but  as  to  the  great  fact  that  the  great  majority  of  establishments, 
judiciously  located,  and  managed  with  proper  skill  and  economy,  have  been  com- 
pelled to  suspend  work,  throughout  the  land,  for  want  of  remunerative  work,  there 
can  not  be  a  shadow  of  doubt.     ... 

A  few  merchant  mills  are  kept  in  motion,  from  the  absolute  necessity  of  having 
a  certain  amount  of  iron  of  superior  quality  for  fine  work ;  but  of  fifteen  rail  mills 
only  two  are  in  operation,  doing  partial  work,  and  that  only  because  their  inland 
position  secured  them  against  foreign  competition  for  the  limited  orders  of  neigh- 
boring railroads— and  when  these  are  executed  not  a  single  rail  mill  will  be  at  work 


Nothing,  however,  was  done  and  like  the  other  industries  of  the 
country  the  iron  trade  had  to  depend  on  the  ameliorating  influences  of 
gold  discoveries  and  a  foreign  war.  But  the.se  were  at  best  artificial  and 
temporan,',  and  i860  found  the  iron  industry,  as  it  did  every  other 
industry  in  the  country,  struggling  for  an  existence.  What  the  result  has 
been  since  can  best  be  gathered  from  table  No.  26. 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Table  No.  26. 
Tabic  Sho7ving   Gro'wth   of  Iron   and  Steel    Industry  in   the    United 
tales,  rS6o  to  iSpo.      Compiled  from    United  Stales   Census  and  Report 
of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association. 


i860. 

1870. 

S08 

1880. 

.8,0. 

Number  of  establishments,  . 

i,So7 

1,005 

645 

Number  of  hands  employed,  . 

48,975 

77,555 

140,978 

152,535 

Wages  paid 

117,765.260 

140,514,981 

155,476,785 

184,665,506 

$37,486,056 

8135,526,132 

$191,271,150 

$205,777,843 

Value  of  product 

172,175,332 

$207,208,696 

$296,557,685 

$430,954,348 

Production  of  iron  ore,  tons,  . 

908,300 

3,031,891 

7,120,362 

14,518,041 

Production  of  all  kinds  of  coal. 

tons, 

14,333,922 

29,342,580 

63,822,830 

140,882,729 

Production  of  pig  iron,  tons,  . 

821,223 

1,665,179 

3,835,191 

9,202,703 

37,5a:. 
30,357 

1,074,262 
864,353 

3,688,871 

Production  of  steel  rails,  tons. 



1,871,425 

During  this  protective  period  the  progress  has  been  extraordinary. 
In  every  branch,  as  soon  as  adequately  protective  duties  were  imposed, 
mills  were  built,  fires  were  lit  and  men  employed  at  the  highest  wages 
ever  known  and  with  the  results  shown  in  the  table.  The  inception  and 
growth  of  the  steel  rail  industn,-  have  already  been  shown.  To  single  out 
another  particular  branch,  wire  nails  were  till  1883  under  a  duty  of  about 
one  cent  per  pound.  In  1883  a  duty  of  four  cents  per  pound  was  imposed. 
The  table  below  will  show  the  result: 

Output  of  Wire  Nails  in  the  United  States  from  the  Commencement  of 
Their  Manufacture  in  1875  to  1894. 


1875, 
1876, 
1877, 
1S78, 
1879, 
1880, 
1881, 
1SS2, 
1883, 


Number  of  ^P^J" 

100  pounds.  P5;„,,; 


9-50 
9.00 

7-95 

S.35 
S.32 
S.35 
7-44 


18S7, 


1890, 
1891, 


1894. 


Number  of     PfJ^ 
100  pounds,   "c";," 


200,000 
300,000 
500,000 
1,000,000 
2,200,000 
3,500,000 
4,114,385 
4,719,524 
5,095,945 
5,681,801 


The  price  in  1892  in  large  lots  was  1.55  cents  per  pound,  and  since 
1886  the  price  has  been  less  than  the  duty. 

It  would  take  volumes  to  give  a  detailed  statement  of  all  branches  of 
the  iron  and  steel  industry.     Suffice  it  to  say  that  in  a  quarter  of  a  century 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


e  have  overtaken  and  passed  Great  Britain.  Here  the  free  trader  inter- 
rupts with  the  assertion  that  ' '  iron  masters  ' '  and  ' '  robber  barons  ' '  of 
Pennsylvania  and  other  States  have  made  wonderful  progress  and  enor- 
mous profits  under  protection  while  the  poor  workmen  have  been  robbed 
of  their  share  of  the  booty.  Let  us  see  how  the  poor  workman  has  been 
robbed.  First,  what  share  does  he  contribute,  or  rather  what  share  does 
he  reap  of  the  total  cost  of  his  production  ?  The  labor  cost  in  iron  and 
steel  production  will  be  found  in  the  chapter  devoted  to  that  subject. 
An  idea  of  the  wages  received  here  and  abroad  can  be  gained  from  the 
following  tables  of  wages  paid  in  the  iron  and  steel,  railroad  and  mining 
industries  in  the  United  States  and  Europe,  which  were  prepared  and  pre- 
sented to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  by  \V.  R.  Sterling,  Finst  Vice- 
President  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Company  ;  ' 

Comparative  Wages  Paid  in  Connellsville  Coal  Region,  Pennsylvania, 
AND  in  the  Coal  Mines  of  Lanarkshire,  Scotland,  Scotch  Rates  Being 
REDUCED  TO  American  Currency  ;  Years  1SS7-SS. 

Connellsville;  Lanarkshire. 

Miners,  per  day, $1.951012.19  Ji.oSto|i.26 

Drivers,  per  day,  .    .        1. 90         2.20  .60 

Blacksmiths 2.50  .96 

CoMPAR.\TivE  Wages    Paid  in  United    States  and  Lanarkshire  Coal 

Mines. 


(.1-foot ' 


Dainille, 

III.,  1893 

(6-foot  vein' 


Miners'  (paid  by  the  ton)  average  earnings, 

per  day I2.2S  S2.12  ]  fi.og 

Engineers,  per  day, |2. 00  to  2.50  1:2.50  to  3.00  '  .91 

Trackmen,  timbermen,  roadmen,  etc.,  per  day,  I  1.80       2.25'  2.00       2.50   |i. 03  to  1.09 
Drivers,  per  day,    .• ......'  1.50  2.00        .48         .91 


Railroad  Labor. 

Chicago. 
Locomotive  engineers — 

Passenger,  per  month,    ...  $145 

Freight,  per  month,    .    .    .  125 

Switchmen,  per  month,  ....  70, 

Section  foremen,  per  month,  .  jf45.oo  to  55 
Section  hands,  per  day,  ...  i.io  i 
Blacksmiths,  per  hour,  .... 

Boilermakers,  per  day 2 

Helpers,  per  day I 

Apprentices,  per  day,     ....  i 

Painters,  per  day 2 

'  Tariff  Hearing,  pp.  31 J  ai 


.00 

I36.00  to 

151.00 

00 

32.00 

48.00 

00 

22.06 

28.34 

00 

22.00 

26.00 

25 

.69 

•  75 

27!.< 

■  lO'/i 

•15, 

75 

.Si 

35 

•ss 

00 

.20 

•25 

I-I3 

I-3I 

d3'3. 

TEXTILE  AXD  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Mr.  J.  S.  Jeans,  Secretary  of  the  British  Iron  and  Steel  Institute,  in 
his  "Railway  Problem,"  confirms  the  above  figures,  for  he  says  that  in 
Belgium,  Germany,  Switzerland  and  France  the  earnings  of  the  different 
grades  of  railroad  labor  vary  from  about  $14  to  $38  per  month,  a  great 
majority  being  less  than  $20. 

Blast  Furnace  Labor. 


Top  fillers,  .  . 
Bottom  fillers, 
Cinder  loaders, 
Blast  engineer. 
General  labor, 


berland    i    Newcastle 
seaport     I    (England). 
(England). 


J5r.l3 
I- 13 
0.85 


I1.71 
1.19 


fi.09 
0.97 


1.27 
fo.81  to  0.97  j  I0.57  to  0.69 


Converting  Mill. 

Chicago. 

Ladlemen,  per  day, $6.88 

Pitmen,  per  day, 7-56 

Runners,  per  day, 4-4° 

Iron  cupolas,  per  day, 8.25 

Iron  stockers,  per  day, 4- 00 

Locomotive  engineer,  per  day, 300 

Common  labor,  per  hour, 15 

Rail  Mill. 

Chicago 

Heaters,  per  day J6.65 

Helpers,  per  day, 4-48 

Levermen,  per  day, .    .    5-58 

Cold  straighteners,  per  day, ■    5- 10 

Helpers,  per  day, 3-40 

Gagger    per  day 1-75 

Drillers,  per  day 4-38 

Table  engineer,  per  day, 3-25 


Sheffield. 
|2-43 
1.94 
1.46 
2.91 
1.46 
1.94 


Sheffield. 
I2.91 
1.94 
1.94 
1.94 
1. 21 


1.46 
2.43 


The  actual  necessary  expenses  of  the  European  are  not  so  verj'  much 
less  than  those  of  the  American.  Rent  and  clothing  cost  a  little  more 
in  this  country  because  the  American  is  able  and  desires  to  live  in 
better  houses  and  rooms  and  wear  better  clothes  than  the  European. 
When  the  year  is  over  the  American  iron  worker,  though  he  has 
lived  better,  dressed  better  and  had  better  food,  still  has  from  $20  to  $100 
more  than  the  European.  Perhaps  this  will  account  for  the  fact  stated  in 
the  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  that  out  of  2490  families  reported 
for  the  United  States  540  own  the  houses  in  which  they  live,  or  about  i  in 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IK  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


every  5  ;  while  of  the  770  European  families  reported  only  31   own  the 
houses  in  which  they  live,  or  about  i  in  25. 

There  are  of  course  countless  branches  of  the  iron  and  kindred 
industries,  to  a  few  of  which  a  brief  reference  only  can  be  made  in  pass- 
ing. Take  agricultural  implements,  for  instance  ;  the  value  of  product, 
number  of  employees  and  wages  paid  vvere  as  follows  : 


YEAR. 

Value  of  Product. 

No.  of  Employees.   ' 

Wages  Paid. 

i860 

517,597.960 
81,271,651 

7,100 
42,544 

1890,       . 

It  will  be  noticed  that  while  the  value  of  product  increased  nearly  five- 
fold the  amount  of  wages  paid  increased  nine-fold. 

Making  a  similar  comparison  with  machinery  the  result  is  as 
follows : 


Value  of  Product. 


I  52,010,376  41.225  I  16,182,546 

412,701,872     247,754   !   148.389,063 


Here  is  a  mo.st  wonderful  instance  of  the  direct  and  indirect  influence 
of  protection.  Not  only  has  the  result  been  possible  because  of  the  pro- 
tection afforded  to  machinery,  but  the  impetus  given  to  the  textile  manu- 
factures and  many  other  industries  has  created  a  demand  for  machinery- 
such  as  to  increase  the  product  eight-fold  and  the  wages  paid  nine-fold  in 
thirty  years. 

The  increase  in  a  few  other  metals  and  kindred  industries  is  shown 
as  follows  : 


Articles. 


Hardware,    '..,., 
Bolts,  nuts,  washers  1 

Saws, 

Scales 

Springs,  etc.,  ... 
Wire,     ...'... 


1S60 


1S60 


$10,903,106 
26,726,463 
2,175.535 
1S90  !  12,373,031 
i860  1,237,063 
1S90   5.572.992 

1S60    ;  1,292,560 

iSgef  I  2,322,744 

1S60  I  2,117,377 

1S90  ,  4.331. 571 

1.S60  2,018,133 

1S90  22,012,804 


Number  of    1 
Employees. 


10,721 
19,671 
1.504 
7.341 
759 
2,943 
728 
1,500 
1,009 


10,186, 

426, 
3.472, 

2S1, 
1.859^ 

280. 

S37; 

408, 
1.174 

279, 
4,183, 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 

The  list  might  be  continued  for  pages,  but  all  would  show  the  same 
result — a  large  increase  of  product,  and  in  ever}'  instance  a  still  larger 
increase  in  amount  of  wages  paid. 

It  would  be  a  most  instructive  and  interesting  task  to  give  a  brief 
review  of  each  of  our  several  hundred  industries,  as  has  been  done  in  the  case 
of  textiles  and  metals,  but  too  many  pages  would  be  required,  and  the 
reader's  attention  can  be  directed  onlj'  to  a  few  of  the  more  important. 
Before  leaving  the  metals,  a  glance  will  be  taken  at  our  brass  industry'. 
In  1833,  according  to  Macgregor,  it  amounted  to  $370,764.  By  i860  the 
product  had  reached  $5,423,074,  employing  2509  workmen,  with  wages 
amounting  to  $962,688.  In  1890  the  value  of  the  product  was  $58,891,938, 
and  $12,993,894  in  wages  were  paid  to  45,141  workmen. 

As  early  as  1770  it  was  seen  that  we  could  become  efficient  workers 
in  the  ceramic  arts.  Our  country  was  rich  in  all  the  elements  required, 
but  England  forbade  any  substantial  development,  and  for  lack  of  adequate 
protection  it  was  not  really  established  till  1870.  Since  then  the  result 
has  been  most  satisfactory.  The  growth  in  thirty  years  can  be  seen  from 
the  following: 


YEAR. 

Value 
of  Product. 

Number 
of  Employees. 

V^i' 

$  2,463,681 
22,057,090 

2,908 
20, 296 

$  934,918 
5,618,401 

i8qo 

90. 

It  was  not  till  1890  that  this  industry  received  the  protection  needed, 
and  had  the  McKinley  bill  continued  in  force  we  should  to-day  be  making 
the  best  earthenware  and  every  grade  of  pottery  that  could  be  made. 
Even  in  1890  there  were  few,  if  any,  articles  that  we  could  not  make  of 
equal  quality  to  that  made  abroad,  and  coincident  with  this  result  has 
been  the  same  fall  of  price  that  has  occurred  in  all  American  productions 
as  soon  as  protection  has  established  their  manufacture  safe  from  foreign 
competition.  And  yet,  in  this  country,  the  cost  of  making  is  fully  125  per 
cent  more,  most  of  which  is  represented  by  wages. 

The  $22,000,000  worth  of  product  represents  not  only  the  direct  labor 
cost  of  manufacture,  but  wages  paid  in  mining,  transportation,  fuel  and 
preparation  of  material.  Speaking  of  the  enhanced  value  given  to  the 
material  by  the  application  of  labor,  Mr.  William  Burgess,  of  Trenton, 
N.  J.,  testified  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  as  follows: 

The  material  in  the  ground  is  worth  $25  to  I50  a  ton.  It  is  worth  from  fS  to  |io 
a  ton  more  when  it  is  ready  for  the  potter.  When  it  is  made  into  a  plate  it  brings  the 
value  up  to  |8o  per  ton.     When  it  goes  through  the  hands  of  the  decorator,  it  is 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


I  increased  332  per  cent.  In  the  finest  grade  of  goods,  when  manufactured  it  is  worth 
considerably  more  than  its  weight  in  gold.  This  shows  that  the  labor  which  enters 
into  the  manufacture  of  goods  adds  vastlj'  to  its  price. 

Table  Showing  the  Difference  Paid  for  the  Same  Labor  on  Pottery  in 
England  and  in  America.' 


Engineer  or  engine  driver,  per  week, 

Laborers,  per  week 

Watchman,  per  week, 

Clay  mixers,  per  week,        

Plateniakers,  for  12  plates,  7-inch, _.    .    .    . 

Saucermakers,  for  12  saucers,  made  by  women  in  Eng- 
land and  men  in  America 

Cups,  per  dozen  of  12  complete,  including  making, 
turning,  and  handling,  made  by  women  and  girls  in 
England  and  men  in  America .•    •    • 

HoUowware  pressers,  per  dozen  of  12  cover  dishes, 
S-inch 

Giggermen,  covered  chambers,  complete,  per  dozen,     . 

Kiln  hands,  per  day, 

Dipper  hands,  per  day,        

Bovs  in  dipping  rooni  will  start  at,  per  day, 

.Vii'.utra.i^v  lioy  will  make, 

Wiiiiicn  in  biMuit  wareroom, 

Wunicn  in  ;.;lust  wareroom, 

Boas  in  glost  wareroom  start  at, 

Glost  warehousemen,  per  day, 

Printers,  average  price  paid,  per  day 

Fillers  in  on  decorators,  girls,  per  day, 

Fillers  in  on  decorators,  women,  per  day, 

Gihkrs  or  gold  workers,  women,  per  day . 

Te.iuisters,  per  day, 

I'oremen,  per  day, . 

Managers,  per  day 


Average  increase  of  .American  labor  over  English, 


f6.oo 
3.60 
5-04 
4.84 

.02| 
.Olf 


■03* 

.72 
■36 
1. 12 


|ii.oo 

7-50 

9.00 
10.00 


•03i 


•  loi 


•6S 
2.00 
2.50 
■33i 
.661 
■75 
•  75 
•33J 
2.00 
2.50 


i.66f 
1.50 
2.50 
5.00 


78f 
io6i- 
190IJ 


76^ 


So| 

4551 
3i6f 


4551 
100 
I3ij-f 
275 
364 
108I 
74!f 

2I2j 


Price  of  Principal  Materials  Entering  Into  the  Cost  of  Manufacturing 
Earthenware  in  England  and  America. 


Ground  flint,  per  ton 

Cornwall  stone  in  England  and  feldspar  in  America 

per  ton,    .    .  

Ball  clay,  per  ton 

China  clay,  per  ton, 

Coal,  per  ton, 

Sagger  clay, 

Average  increase  of  American  materials  over  English, 


$7.00 

6.72 
2.40 
6.52 
1.30 
.84 


I8.50 

10.40 
9-05 

15.00 
2.90 
305 


21? 

54i* 
277tS 
i30i's°s- 
1 23  A 
2632^ 


145 


Tariff  Heariug,  1S93,  p.  91. 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDTTSTRIES. 


It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  standard  of  living  enjoyed  by 
American  workers  in  this  industry  is  far  superior  to  that  of  the  English 
laborer.  Most  complete  comparisons  have  been  made  possible  by  the 
fact  that  the  industry  in  both  countries  is  confined  for  the  most  part  to 
one  locality. 

In  this  connection  it  will  be  recalled  how  the  present  administration 
withheld  the  report  of  William  Burgess,  United  States  Consul  at  Tunstall. 
A  reading  of  this  report  would  go  far  toward  converting  any  wavering 
free  trader  to  protection.  It  was  as  fair  a  consular  report  as  was  ever  sent 
to  Washington,  but  it  told  the  truth  about  the  condition  of  pottery 
laborers  in  the  Staffordshire  district  of  England,  and  in  Trenton,  N.  J.,  and 
the  contrast  was  too  favorable  to  the  American  worker  to  be  published.  It 
has  since  been  published  by  the  protection  press  and  forms  a  most  instruc- 
tive addition  to  the  literature  of  the  tariff  question. 

The  history  of  our  glassware  industry  is  much  the  same  as  that  of 
potter}'.  It  never  had  adequate  protection  till  1890  when  we  at  once 
began  the  making  of  the  finest  qualities  of  wares  to  be  found  in  the  world, 
and  at  as  reasonable  prices  as  the  articles  imported.  In  1831  the  condition 
of  the  industry',  as  reported  by  the  committee  of  the  New  York  Conven- 
tion, was  as  follows  : 


Flint  glass, f  1,300,000 

Crown  window  glass, 150,000 

Cylinder  window  glass,      851,000 

Glass  bottles,  etc 200,000 

Total  production, f  1,501, 000 

Employing  iSoo  men  with  wages  amounting  to |6oo,ooo 


But   from    1831    to 
result  in  i860  and  1890 

i860  our  industries  had  a  hard 
is  herewith  shown: 

Struggle.     The 

Year. 

Value  of  Products. 

No.  of  Hands 
Employed. 

Wages  Paid. 

1890 

$  8,755,155 
41,051.004 

9,016 

45.987 

$  2,903.832 
22,1X8.522 

Most  of  the  glass  imported  comes  from  Belgium  and  other  parts 
of  the  Continent  of  Europe.  Wages  in  Pittsburg  and  other  Ameri- 
can cities  average  among  glass  workers  $18  per  week,  while  in  Belgium 
for  the  same  work  only  $5  is  paid,  and  in  Bohemia  and  other  places  still 
less. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES- 


The  wages  paid  in  the  United  States,  compared  with  Belgium  average 
per  month  as  follows  :' 

Wages  Paid  in  WiND0\^f  Glass  Industry. 

United  States—  Belgium— 

26  days'  work.  30  days'  work. 

Blowers  for  single  and  double  thick, 'Si35  '$55 

Gatherers,  single  and  double, 80  30 

Flatteners,  .single  and  double 155  25 

Cutters,  single  and  double, 100  25 

Packers,  single  and  double 40  18 

Batchmakers,  single  and  double 45  ^^ 

Team  drivers,  single  and  double 29  15 

Blacksmith,  single  and  double, 60  20 

Clay  treaders,  single  and  double, 32  15 

Laborers,  single  and  double,' 32  ^5 

Roller  carriers 36  *6 


It  was  not  till  1868  that  plate  glass  was  manufactured  in  the  United 
States  and  it  was  almost  twenty  years  before  we  had  established  the 
industry  on  a  profitable  basis.  Had  it  not  been  for  protection  we  would 
still  be  paying  from  $2  to  $2.50  per  square  foot  instead  of  the  present  price 
of  forty -five  cents  to  sixty  cents  according  to  the  size.  There  are  now 
twelve  plants  in  this  countr>'  with  a  capacity  of  1,785,000  square 
feet  per  month,  which  have  given  annually  employment  to  6000 
people  with  $3,500,000  in  wages,  and  the  price  now  is  about  one-fourth 
of  what  it  was  before  protection  established  the  industry  in  this  coun- 
try. But  both  output  and  wages  have  been  reduced  since  the  pas- 
.sage  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  and  all  connected  with  the  industry  have 
suffered. 

An  important  element  in  the  productiou  of  glassware  is  soda  ash. 
Till  1884  none  was  made  in  this  country,  and  yet  we  were  using  175,000 
tons  a  year  and  paying  $48  per  ton  for  it.  In  1883  a  duty  of  $5  per  ton 
was  levied.  In  1890  thirty- two  establishments  were  engaged  in  manu- 
facturing sodas  and  the  output  amounted  to  333.124,375  pounds  valued 
at  $5,432,400,  and  the  price  was  only  half  that  paid  to  foreigners  in  1868. 
Nor  is  that  all,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  tons  of  coal  and  limestone  and 
coke  and  salt  have  been  used,  and  American  labor  and  wages  have  reaped 
the  benefit. 

And  so  it  has  been  with  other  chemicals.  In  183 1  the  total  value  of 
all  chemical  products  was  but  $1 ,000,000.  In  i860  it  was  only  $5,000,000, 
yet  in  1890  it  amounted  to  $59,352,548,  and  if  all  allied  products  were  to 
be  included  the  grand  total  would  be  $177,811,833. 

I  Tariff  Hearing,  1S93,  p.  186.  '  Average  per  mouth,  180  boxes.  »  Product,  220  boxes. 
*  Girls  employed. 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Oil  the  subject  of  comparative  wages  in  the  glass  industr3-,  Mr.  E. 
Ford,  President  of  the  Pittsburg  Plate  Glass  Company,  of  Pittsburg,  Pa., 
gave  the  following  statement  : ' 

Comparative  Statement    Showing  Rate    of  Wages   Paid    Per    Month  in 
Belgian,  English  and  American  Plate  Glass  Works  for  Similar  Service. 


Potmakers 

Clay  temperers,  ^ 

Furnace  brickmakers, 

Mixers 

Founders  or  melters,' 

Gas-producer  men, 

Head  teamers 

Teamers,*  .    . 

Casters,*     .    . 

Kiln  heaters, 

Kiln  dressers, 

Foreman  grinders, 

Grinders- 
First  layers, 
Second  layers. 
Third  layers. 
Fourth  layers, 
Mixers, 
Finishe 

Sand  wheelers. 

Mud  wheelers, 

Smoothers,  rubbers. 

Examiners, 

Emery  washers, 

Foreman  polishers, 

Polishers — 
Finishers, 
Layers 
Mixers,  . 

Rouge  burners 

Cutters,  .    .    - 

Packers 

Master  mechanics, 

Machinists, 

Blacksmiths, 

Carpenters, 

Bricklayers, 

Laborers,   . 


Says  Pitkin  in  his  statistics  ( 1834) :  "  The  business  of  making  shoes, 
boots,  saddlery,  harness  and  trunks  is  carried  on  in  almost  every  village 
and  town  throughout  the  United  States." 

The  value  of  the  boot  and  shoe  product  was  then  estimated  at  $16,- 
000,000.     The  total  value  of  leather  was  about  $6,000,000.     And  in  1840 


feet  per  day  ; 


■ing,  1893,  p.  235- 


3  English   employ   female 
I  English,  48  pots;  American 


Com  par 
o/gkis7 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


the  value  of  all  manufactures  from  leather  was  $33,134,403.  In  i860  the 
leather  product  was  valued  at  $75,698,747  and  all  maiuifactures  at  about 
$100,000,000.  In  1890  the  leather  product  exceeded  $175,000,000,  and 
total  manufactures  from  leather  were  valued  at  $350,000,000,  of  which 
$270,000,000  was  m  boots  and  shoes. 

A  comparison  of  forest  products,  lumber,  saw  mills,  etc.,  is  difficult  to 
make  because  of  the  different  methods  emploj-ed  in  census  enumeration. 
Previous  to  i860  no  reliable  statistics  were  obtained  though  it  is  probable 
that  there  were  as  many  or  even  more  lumber  and  saw  mills  fiftj-  years  ago 
than  now.  By  i860  the  product  amounted  to  $100,000,000,  while  in  1890 
it  amounted  to  $500,000,000.  The  wages  in  1S60  were  $21,000,000  and 
in  1890  $231,000,000. 

The  product  of  grist  mills  in  i860  was  valued  at  $248,580,365  and  in 
1890  at  $513,971,474  ;  the  wages  in  i860  being  $8,721,391  and  in  1890 
$27,035,742. 

In  1840  the  value  of  carriages  made  was  $10,897,887,  in  1S60  $26,- 
858,905,  and  in  1890  $114,551,907. 

The  making  of  cars  for  steam  and  street  railways  amounted  to  but 
little  in  i860,  the  value  being  $4,302,613,  while  in  1890  it  had  grown  to 
$205,000,000. 

Of  furniture  $7,555,405  worth  w^as  made  in  1840,  $25,632,293  worth 
in  i860  and  $135,500,00.0  in  1S90. 

Cutlery  is  an  American  industry  due  almost  entirely  to  protection. 
In  1869  it  amounted  to  but  a  little  over  $1,000,000,  while  in  1890  it  had 
increased  to  $  1 1 ,000,000  and  over.  A  few  years  ago  Sheffield  was  marked  on 
all  the  best  cutlery  used  in  this  country.  To-day  no 'better  or  cheaper 
cutlery  is  made  in  the  world  than  in  the  United  States.  A  great  impetus 
was  given  to  the  manufacture,  particularly  of  the  best  grades,  by  the  Mc- 
Kinley  bill. 

In  i860  the  value  of  watches  and  clocks  made  amounted  to  only  about 
$2,500,000.     In  1890  the  value  was  nearly  $30,000,000. 

The  value  of  jewelry  increased  from  $10,000,000  in  i860  to  $35,- 
000,000  in  1890. 

The  value  of  tobacco  manufacture  has  been  as  follows:  18 10, 
$1,260,378;   1840,  $5,819,568  ;    i860,  $30,000,000;   1890,  $211,000,000. 

The  value  of  umbrellas  and  canes  has  grown  from  $3,000,000  in  i860 
to  $14,000,000  in  1890. 

And  so  on  through  the  list  of  our  manufactures.  In  almost  every 
instance  it  is  found  that  our  principal  industries  were  .started  or  received 
a  great  impetus  during  the  operation  of  the  protective  tariffs  of  1824  and 
1828.  After  1833  they  declined  or  were  ruined  altogether.  They  gained 
abreath  of  life  from  1842  to  1846  and  then  declined,  or  at  least  stood  still 
till  i860.  The  above  is  true  when  taken  per  capita.  We  were  increasing 
in  population  and  the  demand  was  greater  everji'  year  consequently  our 


TEXTILE  AKD  OTHER  IXDCSTRIES. 

industries  made  some  progress,  but  as  has  been  shown  elsewhere  no  larger 
per  cent  of  our  population  was  emploj-ed  in  i860  than  in  1850.  This  is 
easily  understood  when  a  glance  is  taken  at  the  manufactured  goods  im- 
ported from  1846  to  i860.  But  it  is  since  the  war,  under  twenty-five  years 
of  protection,  that  the  great  progress  has  been  made. 

There  are  several  great  industries  of  the  United  States  that  are  some- 
times called  non-protected  industries,  such  as  certain  lumber  interests, 
carpentering,  blacksmithing,  mason  work,  plumbing,  etc.  The  growth 
of  these  occupations  has  been  mar^^elous  and  whether  classed  as  pro- 
tected or  non-protected  it  can  all  be  traced  to  the  beneficence  of  a  pro- 
tective tariff.  If  the  American  people  had  not  for  a  generation  enjoyed 
the  spendable  incomes  made  possible  by  American  wages,  they  could  not 
have  built  the  millions  of  houses  and  barns,  the  churches  and  school 
"houses,  the  theatres  and  halls,  and  all  the  varied  buildings  that  fill  our 
cities  and  towns.  The  building  of  edifices  makes  the  demand  for  timber, 
for  brick  and  stone,  and  gives  employment  to  the  carpenter,  the  mason, 
the  bricklayer,  the  plumber,  the  painter  and  hosts  of  others.  The  Ameri- 
can carpenter  may  not  come  in  direct  competition  with  the  foreign  car- 
penter, but  without  the  prosperity  brought  about  by  protection  his  work 
would  not  be  required.  The  man  who  wants  his  horse  shod  must  go  to  the 
American  blacksmith,  but  without  protection  he  might  not  have  the  lior.se 
to  be  shod.  And  so  when  the  wily  free  trader  tells  us  that  the  workman 
in  "  non-protected  "  industries  gets  higher  wages  than  the  laborer  in  pro- 
tected indu.stries,  we  have  but  to  reply  that  many  of  those  employed  in 
the  former  would  have  no  work  or  wages  at  all  but  for  protection. 

The  following  will  show  at  a  glance  what  protection  had  done  for 
some  "non-protected"  workers: 


Blacksmithing,  1S60 

1890,      

Carpentering,  i860 

"  1890, 

Plumbing,  etc.,  i860 

1890,     ..... 
Painting  and  paper  hanging,  1S60, 
1890, 


111,641,243 
54,304,638 
12,646,392 
281,195,162 
2,113,701 
80,905,925 
915,339 
74,067,998 


140,021 

1,345 

42,513 

913 

56,281 


«4, 827,303 
26,796,927 
3,868.672 
94,524.197 


This  list  might  be  continued;  such  trades  as  milliner>',  dres.smaking, 
all  kinds  of  repairing,  etc.,  could  be  included,  but  for  want  of  space  only 
one  more  will  be  given.  Few  will  deny  that  prosperity  is  conducive  to  a 
high  degree  of  intelligence  and  with  widespread  and  general  intelligence 
comes  a  demand  for  books,  papers  and  periodical  literature.  In  1S40 
there  were  in  the  United  States,  daily  papers,  138;  weekly,  1141;  semi- 


TAIilFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

and  tri-weekly ,  1 25 ;  periodicals,  227 ;  employing  about  1 1 ,523  men  and  with 
an  annual  value  of  about  $5,000,000.  In  i860  the  printing  and  publishing 
business  amounted  to  only  $31,063,898,  while  in  1894  the  result  was  as  fol- 
lows: Dailies,  1868;  weeklies,  14,710;  semi-  and  tri-weeklies,  253;  monthlies, 
2214;  semi-  and  bi-monthlies,  462;  quarterlies  and  miscellaneous  period- 
icals, 156,  and  the  total  value  of  the  printing  and  publishing  business  in 
1890  was  $275,452,515,  employing  165,227  people  with  $105,083,075  in 
wages.  For  this  industry  and  other  purposes  the  value  of  paper  used  was 
as  follows:    1840,  $5,641,495;  i860,  $21,216,802;   1890,  $74,067,998. 

Could  the  amounts  of  all  industries  be  carried  to  1892  a  still  more 
wonderful  growth  could  be  seen,  for  great  as  was  the  progress  during  the 
years  from  i860  to  1890,  it  was  still  greater  in  1891  and  1892.  Not  only 
did  established  industries  advance  with  wonderful  rapidity,  but  numer- 
ous new  industries  were  established,  giving  employment  to  thousands  at 
higher  wages  than  ever  before.  Reference  has  already  been  made  to  tin 
plate,  to  plu,shes  and  velvets,  and  laces,  to  which  could  be  added  many 
others,  such  as  brass  bedsteads,  pearl  buttons,  twine  making,  sugar  beets, 
curtains,  certain  knit  and  worsted  and  silk  goods,  finer  grades  of  cutlery, 
pottery  and  glassware,  fine  cotton  spinning  chenilles,  and  many  others. 
In  fact,  there  was  hardly  an  industry  that  did  not  attain  a  higher  degree 
of  perfection  under  the  McKinley  bill.  Take  pearl  buttons  for  example. 
In  1889  there  were  less  than  a  dozen  factories  in  this  country  altogether 
employing  about  200  persons  part  of  the  year,  with  wages  averaging  ten 
dollars  per  week.  In  1892  there  were  eighty  factories  employing  over  4000 
persons,  at  wages  averaging  over  eighteen  dollars  per  week,  and  working 
full  time.  Over  two  million  dollars'  capital  was  at  once  invested  and  the 
production  amounted  to  $7,000,000  in  value  in  a  single  year.  That  was 
the  benefit  given  to  capital  and  labor.  The  following  figures  taken  from 
the  books  of  a  manufacturer  will  show  what  benefit  the  consumer 
derived: 

Prior  to  lIcKiuIey  Bill.        Since  McKinley  Bill. 
Per  gross.  Per  gross. 

Sixty  line  buttons, |20.oo                       .         I10.50 

Fifty-five  line 15.00  8.50 

Fifty  line 12.00  7.00 

Forty-five  line, 8.00  6.00 

Forty  line, 6.00  5.00 

Thirty-si.x  line 4.50  3.75 

Thirty  line, 2.75  3.75 

Twenty-eiglit  line,       2.50  2.50 

Twenty-four  line, 1.40  1.75 

The  second  and  third  qualities  of  buttons  are  about  in  the  same  proportion.  The 
large  buttons  which  are  in  great  demand  for  girls'  and  women's  cloaks,  have  fallen  60 
per  cent.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  cost  of  shells  plays  a  prominent  part  in  the 
manufacture  of  large  buttons,  being  two-thirds  of  the  entire  cost  of  production,  but  in 
the  case  of  small  buttons  the  entire  cost  of  manufacture  is  eight-tenths  of  the  cost  of 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHEE  INDUSTRIES. 

ihe  production.  The  large  increase  of  wages  makes  the  small  buttons  a  little  higher, 
but  this  difficulty  will  soon  be  overcome,  as  the  manufacturers  are  now  selling  direct  to 
retailers  without  the  intervention  of  middle-men. 


The  pearl  button .  industrj^  is  but  one  of  many.  It  would  probably 
be  impossible  to  cite  a  single  trade  or  industry  that  has  been  injured  by 
protection.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  not  an  indust]^'  in  this  country  that 
either  does  not  owe  its  establishment  and  existence  to  a  protective  tariff,  or 
has  not  been  built  up  and  maintained  through  its  direct  or  indirect  influence. 
Till  1 880  our  industries  have  never  had  a  decade  of  uninterrupted  progress. 
At  first  we  had  war  and  a  glut  of  cheap  foreign  importations.  The  tariffs 
of  1824  and  182S  had  hardly  begun  to  have  their  influence  before  the  nul- 
lifiers  forced  the  act  of  1833.  We  have  seen  that  as  soon  as  the  reductions 
under  this  act  began  to  make  themselves  felt,  the  commercial  crises  of 
1837  and  1S39  took  place,  and  a  period  of  financial  depression  ensued. 
Then  came  the  tariSs  of  1846  and  1857.  The  war  of  the  rebellion  followed, 
and  from  1870  to  1880  came  the  financial  panic  of  1873,  and  the  depression 
caused  by  a  return  to  a  gold  basis.  From  1880  to  1890,  however,  was  a 
decade  of  general  growth,  and  a  glance  at  the  table  on  page  628  will  show 
what  protection  did  for  our  industries  during  those  ten  years.  If  the 
.statistics  could  be  carried  to  the  end  of  1892  the  restilt  would  be  even 
more  astonishing.  But  for  reasons  shown  in  the  following  pages  our 
industrial  growth  reached  its  highest  point  at  that  time  and  such  advance 
cannot  again  be  chronicled  till  we  return  to  a  complete  .system  of  thor- 
oughly adequate  protective  duties. 

In  concluding  the  brief  review  of  the  growth  of  industries  from  i860 
to  1890,  the  attention  of  the  reader  is  called  to  Table  No.  27,  on  the 
following  pages  compiled  from  the  Census  Reports  of  the  United  States, 
for  information  as  to  other  industries,  as  well  as  to  those  previously  men- 
tioned. It  shows  the  number  of  establishments,  hands  employed,  wages 
paid,  cost  of  material  and  value  of  product,  together  with  the  percentage 
of  increase  in  wages  paid  and  the  percentage  of  increase  in  value  of 
product.  It  is  a  most  important  fact  that  in  nearly  every  case  the  amount 
paid  in  wages  has  increased  more  than  the  value  of  product. 

Under  the  progressive  development  of  our  industries  the  prices  of 
all  manufactured  articles  have  been  redticed  to  the  consumer,  as  capital 
has  increased,  machinerj'  and  artisans  have  become  more  eiBcient,  and 
our  manufacturers  are  able  to  avail  themselves  of  the  advantages  of  large 
production,  good  markets  and  quick  sales. 

The  competition  among  our  own  producers  has  secured  prices  based 
on  fair  profits  to  the  employer  and  good  wages  to  the  employed.  That 
this  is  in  great  part  due  to  the  policy  of  protection  is  proven  by  many 
facts.  This  proposition  is  not  answered  by  saying  that  prices  have 
declined   throughout  the  entire  world,  because  protection  has  been  the 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Table 

Table  Shozi'ing  Growth  of  Manufactures 
Compiled  from  Census 


Industries. 


its, 


'  Billiard  tables,  etc.,      

Bookbinding  and  blank  books. 

Boots  and  shoes, 

Boxes,  paper  and  wood,  .    .    .    . 

Brass,  etc 

Brooms,  brushes,  etc 

1  Carpentering,      

I  Carpets, 

Carriages,  etc 

I  Cars,  etc., 

j  Chemicals, 

I  Cigars,      

Clocks,  watches  and  materials, 
\  Clothing,  men's, 

Clothing,  women's,  factory  pro- 
duct,   

Coffins,  etc., 

Coke 

Confectionery, 

Cooperage 

Cordage  and  twine 

Cotton  goods,      

Cutlery  and  edge  tools 

Engraving  materials,  etc 

Fertilizers, 

Flour  and  meal, 

Furniture, 

Class 

[  Gloves  and  mittens, 

I  Gunpowder, 

I  Hardware 

Hats  and  caps, 

Hosiery, 

!  Iron  and  steel 

Jewelry 

Leather, 

Luniiier,  sawed  and  planed,    .    . 

Marble  and  stonework,  .    .    .    . 

Millinery  goods 

Musical  instruments 

Paints 

j  Paper, 

Pnnting  and  publishing,     .    . 

Saddlery  and  harness,      .    .    .    . 


1,982 

5 

87 

25 

269 

12,486 

505 

207 

366 

1,323 

216 

3,961 

7S 

84 

1,4/8 


iSS 

215 

21 

541 

2,707 

190 

S03 

217 

195 

.47 

13.S6S 

3,594 

.  112 

126 

58 

443 

655 

197 

2,269 

463 

5,234 

20,165 

l,So6 

35 

223 

45 

555 

1,666 

3.621 


910 

35 

403 

57 

S05 

23,695 

1,515 

596 

1,235 

16,917 

1,013 

9,240 

8S2 

563 

10,956 

4,625 

18,658 

1,224 

1,562 

21S 

2,921 

2,652 

150 

905 

474 


5,973 
294 
324 
37 
452 
705 
796 

1,708 
859 

1,926 
24,681 

3.373 

6,277 


704 


382 

567 

16,566 

7,931 


14,810 

119 

437 

302 

4,777 

125,026 

3,554 

2,589 

3,589 

9,066 

6,683 

27,854 

3,702 

1,529 

7,997 

1,865 

114,800 


2,340 
13,750 

3,47s 
114,955 

4,207 

741 

308 

27,682 

27,106 

9,016 

1,429 

747 

10,721 

11,764 

9,103 
68,997 

5,947 
26,600 
75.605 
15,379 

1,034 

4,46 1 
563 
10,911 
20,159 
12,285 


42,544 
2,267 
3,732 
1.157 
13,815 

193,539 
39,413 
23.041 
10,984 

140,021 
31,213 
87,317 

144.514 
16,952 
98,156 
23,339 

243,857 

42,008 

■  9,658 

9,159 

27,211 

24,652 

12,798 

221,585 

9,487 

5,642 

lo,  15S 

63,481 

92,504 

45,987 

8,669 

1,730 

22,850 

27,193 

61,209 

212,229 

16.799 

48,101 

373,085 

35.9S9 

35,So3 

19.428 

8737 

29.568 

165,227 

30.326 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


in  the  United  States,  from  i860  to  i8go. 
of  the  United  States. 


Paid. 

% 

Cost  of 
Material  Used. 

Value  of  Product. 

1 

II 
362 

1890. 

i860. 

1890. 

i860. 

1890. 

ll 

|2r,8ii,76i 

329 

15,636,169 

$31,603,265 

117,597,960 

$81,271,651 

1 

1,110,482 

2,655 

75.010 

2.750,782 

160,900 

6,538,959 

3,964 

2 

1,269,135 

954 

62,205 

1,398,483 

255,137 

3,633,592 

1,324 

3 

870,480 

519 

343.868 

1,295,942 

739.900 

2,823,278 

282 

4 

6.903,951 

55S 

1,554.082 

6,007,417 

3,729,080 

17,067,780 

358 

5 

91.086,224 

194 

42,728,174 

158,452,755 

91,889,298 

298,847,245 

224 

6 

15,481,408 

1,337 

1,799,448 

25,705.764 

3,957,744 

51,410,458 

1,199 

7 

12,993,894 

3,104,392 

26,597.645 

5,483,074 

48,890,938 

792 

8 

4,317,026 

386 

1,872,710 

6,900,553 

3,542,077 

14,156,383 

9 

94,524,197 

2.343 

5,164,975 

137,847,002 

12,646,392 

281,195,162 

2,124 

iO 

12,438,631 

704 

4,419,561 

29.582,138 

7,860,351 

49,996.469 

536 

11 

46,737,904 

367 

9,210,296 

59,177,984 

27,265,845 

134.908,455 

395 

12 

81,243,373 

5,512 

3,084,544 

114,089,087 

6,298,963 

205,813,297 

3,167 

13 

9.691,843 

1,814 

2,707,152 

33,694.927 

4,705,741 

59.352.548 

1,161 

14 

44,767,980 

1,669 

3,511,312 

50,298,960 

9,068,778 

129,693,275 

1,330 

15 

13,549,830 

1,660 

1,199,856 

10,016,535 

2,773,350 

30,390,228 

.  16 

111,389,672 

461 

44,149,752 

179,425,661 

80,830,555 

378,022,815 

36S 

17 

18,812,787 

1,477 

3,323.335 

34,277.219 

7,181,039 

68,164,019 

849 

18 

5.554.409 

1,720 

323,823 

9,203,932 

1,052,123 

20,013,694 

1,802 

19 

4,1,86,264 

6,722 

73.552 

11,509,737 

189,844 

16,498,345 

8,590 

11,633.448 

1,590 

2,990,186 

31,116,629 

5,361, ic» 

55,997,101 

945 

21 

11,635.366 

172 

4.105,203 

20,636,911 

11,343,221 

38,617,956 

240 

22 

4,536.871 

370 

5.665.320 

24,051,666 

7,843,339 

33,312,550 

325 

23 

69,489,272 

209 

52.666,701 

154,912,979 

107,337,783 

267,981,724 

150 

24 

4.918.152 

215 

1,703,663 

3.465,124 

4,610,217 

11,110,614 

141 

25 

3.404,361 

910 

162,521 

1,396,912 

844,840 

7,294,143 

763 

26 

4,671,831 

4,806 

590,816 

25,113,874 

891,344 

39,180,844 

4,296 

27 

27,035,742 

210 

208,497,309 

434.152,290 

248,580,365 

513,971,474 

107 

28 

48,792,752 

448 

8,181,250 

55.125,830 

25,632,293 

135,627,332 

429 

29 

22,118.522 

662 

2,914,303 

12,140,985 

8,775,155 

41,951,004 

378 

30 

3,109,008 

Sii 

537,589 

5,021,144 

1,176,795 

10,103,821 

758 

31 

1,002,694 

244 

1,812,290 

3.279.004 

3,223.090 

6,752,343 

109 

32 

11,458,781 

233 

4,402,958 

11,811,291 

10,903, 106 

30,844,658 

183 

33 

14,111.747 

270 

8,252,380 

16,160,802 

16,937,782 

37,311,599 

120 

34 

18,263,272 

999 

3,202,317 

35,861,585 

7,280,606 

67,241,013 

824 

35 

li6.42S,6si 

394 

51,076,922 

374.999,681 

98,330,584 

562,338,069 

472 

36 

10,857,967 

317 

5.102,500 

16,593,660 

10,415,811 

36.215,511 

248 

37 

25  450.003 

206 

50,727,930 

125,935,468 

77,180,497 

177.714,520 

130 

38 

136.754.513 

522 

51,358,400 

386,482,452 

104,928,342 

587,349,127 

460 

39 

25.363.521 

347 

5.345.526 

28,868,904 

16,244,044 

62,595,762 

fS 

14.397.568 

7,010 

739,965 

27,345,118 

1,483,154 

55,030, 149 

3,610 

41 

13.306,383 

460 

2,144,298 

14,435,563 

6,548,432 

36,868,169 

463 

42 

5.605,626 

2,521 

1,567,238 

24,930,532 

2,574,955 

40,438,171 

1,470 

43 

13,746.584 

11,602,266 

42,223,314 

21,216,802 

74,309,388 

250 

44 

105,083,075 

1,285 

12,844,288 

68,858,915 

31,063,898 

275,452,515 

787 

45 

16,030,845 

'286 

6,606,415 

24,674,225 

14,169,037 

52,970,801 

m 

46 

TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Table 

Ta6/e  Showing  Groivth  of  Mamtf act  tires 
Compiled  from  Census 


48 


Salt 

Saws, 

49  Sewing  machines, 

50  Silk 

5 1  Soap  and  candles, 

52  Steam  heaters  and  heating  ap- 

paratus,       

53  Sugar,  refining,  .    .    -    . 

54  Tin,     copper,    and    sheet    iron 

ware, 

55  Tobacco,     chewing,     smoking, 

suuflF,  etc., 

56  Trunks,  carpet  bags  and  valises, 

57  Umbrellas  and  parasols,      .    .    . 

58  Uph.-lstery, 

59  Wire, 


60      Wire  work,  etc. 


Wooden  ware,  etc., 
Woolen  goods,  .  . 
Worsted  goods, 


65  Total  classified  industries,  . 

66  Total  unclassified  industries. 


Grand  total  industries. 


626 

151 

66 

199 

25 

67 

245 

1,260 

3 

7 


94,918 
45,515 


687 

395 

435 

152 

24 

569 

1,043 

1,311 

143 

8 


209, 226 
146,189 


140,433  i   355,415 


2,213 

759 

2,287 

5,320 

3,247 


11,220 

18,859 

2,092 

1,951 

1,427 

7S9 

540 

2,064 

41,360 

2,378 

293 


915,163 
396,083 


,311,246 


4,455 
2,943 
9,121 
50,913 
9,305 


1371,954 
281,392 
1,090,956 
1,035,308 
1,066,390 


38,442  1   4,056,480 


37,771 
6,785 
6,863 
3,479 
7,804 
7,917 
11,626 
79,351 
43,593 
1,082 


433,980 
425,452 
279,540 
146,904 
648,816 
9,808,254 
543.6S4 
103,416 


3,127,892  $248,435,590 
1,584,730  130,443,376 


4,712,622  1378,878,966 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


No.  27 — (Continued). 

in  the  United  States,  from  i860  to  i8go. 
of  the  United  States. 


Paid. 

Cost  of 
Material  Used. 

Value  of  Product. 

II 

11 

^"5 

1% 

11 

:8go. 

t 

i860. 

1890. 

i860. 

1890. 

$1,782,491 

379 

11,054,780 

11,826,770 

12,289,504 

15.484,618 

140 

47 

1,859,694 

561 

583,123 

2,346,401 

1,237.063 

5,572.992 

351    48 

5,170.555 

374 

647,963 

3,502,173 

4,247,820 

12,823,147 

202    ;     49 

19,680,318 

1,800 

3,906,290 

51,004,425 

6,589,171 

87,298,454 

1,225  ;   50 

4.951,648 

364 

12,562,179 

28,687,412 

18,464,574 

43,600,285 

136  1  51 

7,594,,'^95 

9,953 

189,876 

10,628,314 

516,650 

23,147.434 

4.3S0  1  52 

2,815,275 

107 

34,103,767 

107,758,811 

42,143,234 

123,118,259 

192  1    53 

21,036,375 

419 

7,699,047 

31,227,522 

16,718,388 

66,653,746 

299      54 

10,024,017 

181 

13,024,988 

42,005,357 

21,820,535 

82,053,348 

276  !    55 

3,513,749 

407 

1,380.444 

4,703.982 

2,836,969 

IO,,S2I,62I 

281       56 

3,204,797 

638 

2,015,623 

7,562,921 

2,948,302 

13.771.927 

367  ,    57 

1,454,062 

237 

1,705,634 

3,013,253 

2,920,188 

5.733,039 

96  ,    5S 

4,183,802 

1,396 

1,133,805 

15,038,540 

2,018,133 

22,012,804 

991   ■    59 

3.983,209 

2,611 

284,160 

8,325.435 

595.52S 

15.552.857 

2,511       60 

5,506,257 

749 

885,046 

5,496.697 

2,234,996 

14,680,724 

557  !    61 

28,478,931 

190 

36,586,887 

82,270,335 

62,005,217 

133.577,977 

115  1    62 

15,880,183 

2,821 

2,442,775 

50,706,769 

3,701.378 

79.194.652 

653,096 

532 

238,227 

2,005,682 

549,460 

2,976,730 

442 

64 

;$i, 479, 720, 660 

496 

1759.589,384 

13.357,541,445 

$1,325,961,853 

15,905,343,563 

345 

65 

803,495,869 

516 

272,015,708 

1,804,502,631 

559,899,823 

3,467,093,720 

519 

12,283,216,529 

503 

11,031,605,092 

15,162,044,076 

$1,885,861,676 

$9,372,437,283 

397 

67 

TARIFF  QUESTION  IS  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


policj-  of  all  great  manufacturing  nations,  with  the  exception  of   Great 

Britain.     The  development  of  manufacturing  on  the  Continent  of  Europe 

through  protective  tariffs,  and  in  the  United  States  since  i860,  has  broken 

the  monopoly  of  prices  and  markets  which   the   British  manufacturers 

held. 

In   every  instance,   either   on  the    Continent  of    Europe    or  in    the 

United  States,  where  an  industry  has  been  established  under  the  influence 

of  protection,  the  British  manufacturers  have  reduced  prices  to  meet  the 

new  conditions  and  retain  a  share  of  the  market.     No  one  can  belie\e 

that  if  the  English  manufacturers  alone  could  supply  the  world  with  a 

particular  article  the  people  would  not  be  compelled  to  pay  such  prices  as 

the  producers  saw  fit  to  demand. 

The  following  table  of  the  retail  prices  of  fifty-six  articles  of  common 

use  was  published  by  the  American  Economist '  in  October,  1891,  after  a 

most  careful  and  thorough  investigation  of  the  books  of  various  concerns 

doing  business  iu  the  year& stated: 

ARTICLES. 

■857. 

October, 

1889. 

October, 

1890. 

September, 
1891. 

Axe 

I1.49 

■  J0.95 

4-23 

.11 '4: 
327 

■oy'A 
•77^ 
.2434- 
•  25?^ 

■S'A 

.27X 

•5634: 

.39^ 

.72 

.lOfi 

.48X 

.14 
.4S>^ 
56.9S 

i4-37>^ 
22.563^ 

So.  92 
■  H'A 

4-09'A 
.11 

3-07 

■    :^J 

.46X 

.04^ 

.06^ 

.65  K 

•24 

.52X 

.14H 

52.60 

■0A/2 

■Si 
-:& 

1393^ 

2I.24>^ 
■30 

|o.S8 

Blankets,  pair 

4.76 

■H'A 

.34.^4: 

% 

I.28'| 

.42 
■99'4 

3.00 

.22| 
2.43  >^ 
.85 
.21 
•83 
121. 15 

3- 70 
•09  >^ 

2.7834: 

.06 

.66>4 

.\^% 

Cotton  hosiery, 

.10% 
•41X 

.04>^ 

.o6j^ 

•58K 

Kile       °                            

.20!i 

.46X 

■i\y* 

■54  ;4 

Ciiu'haui    vard                                            .    . 

.d&% 

■37'A 

■  ii'A 

■42/2 

Mowing  machine 

^'  -oiH 

Oil  cloth,  yard                                  .    . 

.84 
1. 20 '4^ 
.22  V 
•  IlM 
20.12>^ 

•31 

Overalls 

■   .7o>^ 

Pearl  buttons,  dozen 

•13^ 

.05.V 

Plow                                     

12.90 

Rake,  horse 

19.4034 
.26!^ 

» The  De 

fender,  No.  5 

TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Reaper  and  binder,  .  .  . 
Rubber  boots,      .... 

Salt,  barrel,      

vShoes, 

Sheeting,  yard, 

Shovel, 

Spade, 

Starch,  pound, 

Straw  hat,  good,  .... 
Straw  hat,  common,  .  . 
Sugar,  pound,  granulated. 
Sugar,  pound,  brown,  .    . 

Sugar  bowl 

Scythe.       

Tin  dipper,  ....... 

Tin  milk  pail 

Tin  milk  pan,      

Ticking,  yard 

Wagon,      

'  Washboard 

Washtub 

Wheelbarrow 

Wooden  pails 

Woolen  clothing 


October,         October, 


I142.36       I  JS129.S5 
3. 1034-  3.00 

75  1-55 


$115.96 
2-73,¥ 
1.38 

•063/ 
.80-4: 
.84' 

1. 10 

.23X 

■04'A 
•32X 

.68^ 

■39^ 
■^S'A 

75.00 

.22  ji 
.65 
,i-4o 
.20}^ 
14.25 


Below  is  given  comparative  wholesale  prices  of  various  articles  in  the 
years  named,  compiled  from  the  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States, 
the  American  Almanac  and  other  equally  reliable  sources: 


Leather,  pound,      

Standard  drilling,  5-ard, 

Shirting,  yard, 

Muslin,  yard,  

Sixty-four  and  sixty-four  prints,  yard 

Anthracite  coal,  ton, 

Bituminous  coal,  ton, 

Illuminating  oil,  gallon, 

Rules,  two  feet,       

Hand  saws,  dozen 

Flat  files,  dozen, 

Auger  bits,  dozen,      

One-horse  steel  plow  (wood  beam) 

Two-horse  steel  plow  (wood  beam 

One-horse  iron  plow  (wood  beam), 

Two-horse  iron  plow  (wood  beam), 

Two-horse  side  hill  or  reversible  plow 

Potato-digger,      

Old-fashioned  tooth  harrow 

One-horse  cultivator, 

Common  garden  iron  rake  (lo-tooth  steel),  dozen, 
Corn-sheller  (one  hole), 


1S57 
1S57 
1857 
1854 
1857 
1855 
1857 
1870 
1854 
1854 
1857- 
1857 
1873 
1873 
1873 
1873 
1873 
1873 
1873 
I  1873 

!  1873 
i  1873 


$29.00 
.09 

•  IS 

.15 
.06 

4-49 
4.29 
■31 
2.60 

16.00 
2.50 
2.29 
6.50 

20.00 
5.00 

13  00 

18.00 

1500 
7.00 
12.00 


S90 


J16.C 


•°3 
3-9° 
2.60 

.07 

•47 
12.15 
1.27 

.09 
2.75 
12.00 
2.00 


750 
6.50 
350 

3-75 
6.00 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IiV  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  following   table  shows  the  decline  in  prices  of  hardware  from 
1880  to  1890: 


Barb  wire,  per  lb. ,  .    . 
Fence  staples,  per  lb., 
Iron  nails,  per  keg. 
Steel  nails,  per  keg, 
Tin  cup,         .... 
Zinc,  per  lb.,    ... 
Wash  boiler,     .    .    . 
Stove  pipe  joint,     . 
Horseshoes,  per  keg. 
Tool  steel,  per  lb- , 
Plow  steel,  per  lb,, 
Cook  stove,       .    .    . 
Mattock  and  handle, 

Wrench 

Blossburg     coal,     per 


Jo.  10 
.10 
6.00 


2.25 
•25 
S.oo 


Bull  ring,  .... 
Putty,  per  lb.,  .  . 
WindoV  glass  reduced 

25  per  cent. 
Shot,  per  lb.,    .    .    . 

Iron,  per  lb 

Four-tined  fork, 

Seat-spring,  pair,    . 

Lantern, 

Common  clevis,  .    . 

Milk  cans,  perdoz., 

Buggy  springs,  per  lb. 


So 

.40 

.10 

.12'/, 

o,S 

7,S 

I 

75 

I 

I 

so 

20 

2 

25 
20 

I 

I0.04 
■05 

2.S0 

•05 

1-75 
.20 
4-50 


iron,  per  lb., 

Cartridges,  per  box,  . 

Wire  cloth,  per  ft.,     . 

Cast  washers,  per  lb., 

Post-augers,  .    . 

vSlop-pail 

Plain  wire,  per  lb.,    . 

Pipe-collars 

Door-knobs 

Cast  butts  with  screws, 

Chain,  per  lb.,    .    .    . 

File,      

Tin,  per  sheet,     . 

Door-latches,      .    .    . 

Basket,      

Roof  saddle,   ... 

Door-ke}',  .    . 

Covered  pail 

Wheelbarrow,     .    .    . 

Oil-can,     .        .    .    .    . 

Plane 

Pie-plates,  per  doz.,  . 

Blortise  lock,  .        .    . 

Cistern  pump,     .    .    . 

Universal  wringer,    . 

Pocket  and  table  cut- 
lerv  reduced  one- 
half. 


fo.I2>^ 

35 


j5o.o6 


■  65 
-05 


The  whole  list  of  consumable  commodities  might  be  taken  up  and  a 
similar  result  shown.  In  1872  we  were  paying  $2  a  yard  for  body 
Brussels  carpets,  which  in  1890  were  sold  for  93  cents.  The  price 
of  tapestry  carpets  has  been  reduced  from  $1.46  in  1872  to  65  cents 
in  1890.  And  ingrain  carpets  from  $1.20  a  yard  to  45  cents  in  the 
same  years.  In  1864  a  crate  of  assorted  earthenware  which  sold  for 
$210.75  was  reduced  to  $57. 85  '"  1882  and  $46.30  in  1890.  A  crate  of  white 
earthenware  which  sold  for  $95.30  in  1852  could  be  bought  for  less  than  $40 
in  1890.  The  price  of  laces  and  embroideries  has  been  reduced  33  per  cent. 
Silks  and  velvets  from  25  to  33  per  cent,  and  a  general  reduction  in  every 
article  constituting  a  stock  of  dry  goods  in  any  store  in  the  United  States 
from  23  to  33  per  cent  from  1880  to  1890.  It  is  difficult  to  make  comparisons 
in  the  price  of  clothing  because  of  so  many  changes  in  style  and  variety 
but  since  1880  there  has  been  a  general  reduction  in  all  grades  of  ready- 
made  clothing  of  from  30  to  50  per  cent.  There  has  been  a  decline  in  the 
price  of  boots  and  shoes  during  the  same  time  of  over  30  per  cent.  A  similar 
result  is  found  in  watches,  clocks  and  jewelry,  while  a  most  marked  reduc- 
tion has  taken  place  in  all  articles  of  household  furniture.  The  following 
decline  in  the  price  of  dry  goods  from  1880  to  1890  has  taken  place: 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Unbleached  muslin,  per  yard,    , 

Calico,  per  yard, 

Gingham,  per  yard,      .... 
Worsted  dress  goods,  per  yard, 


iSSo. 
Price. 

^e 

COS 

.     j!o.o6 

.07 

05 

.I2>< 

10 

■15 

12/ 

•35 

25 

•65 

50 

1. 00 

75 

The  decline  iu  prices  in  the  United  States  has  occurred  under  the 
highest  and  most  vigorous  protection  the  people  ever  enjoyed.  Protection 
then  does  not  prevent  competition  among  our  producers  from  adjusting 
prices  to  an  equitable  basis  fixed  and  regulated  by  the  cost  of  production 
in  our  own  factories.  The  larger  our  production  becomes  the  more 
our  industries  are  diversified,  the  more  they  become  extended  to  the 
States — North,  South,  East  and  West,  the  more  difficult  it  becomes  for 
combinations  and  trusts  to  fix  prices  and  create  monopolies.  The  fore- 
going facts  show  that  trusts  and  combinations  have  not  stood  in  the  way  of  a 
reduction  of  prices  in  these  commodities,  and  that  the  polic}'  of  protection 
has  not  prevented  our  consumers  from  deriving  the  utmost  benefit  from  that 
cheapening  of  commodities  arising  from  inventions  and  improvements. 

The  following  table  shows  the  decline  in  the  prices  of  farm  products 
and  of  articles  that  farmers  buy  : 


Articles  That  Farmers  Buv. 

Articles  That  the 

Farmers  Sell. 

1873- 

1891. 

1S73. 

1S91. 

Refined  sugar,  pound,  . 

$  0.116 

$  o^o57 

Cotton,  pound,  .    .    .    . 

I0.1S8 

$0.18 

Cut  nails,  pound,  .    .    . 

.046 

0.1S6 

Corn,  bushel 

.61 

.  ^57 

Ear  iron,  ton, 

S6.00 

42.00 

Wheat,  bushel,  .    .    . 

i^3i 

■93 

Steel  rails,  ton,  .... 

120.50 

29.92 

Bacon  and  ham,  pound, 

.76 

Rio  coffee,  pound,     .    . 

.iS 

.16 

Lard,  pound 

.132 

.069 

Tea,  pound 

■95 

•25 

Pork,  pound, 

.078 

•  059 

Sheeting,  yard,  .... 

•1331 

.0683 

Beef,  pound 

.077 

.056 

Drilling,  yard,    .... 

.1413 

.0641 

Butter,  pound,    .    .    . 

.211 

•  145 

Shii-ting,  yard,    .... 

.1941 

.1064 

Cheese,  pound,  .    .    . 

•131 

.09 

Standard  prints,  yard,  . 

•"37 

.06 

Tobacco,  pound,    .    . 

.107 

.087 

Print  cloth,  }'ard,  .    .    . 

.0669 

.0295 

Quinine,  ounce,      .    .    . 

2.65 

■30 

Goblets,  dozen 

•  85 

•25 

Window  glass,  10x14    . 

3^40 

1.70 

Under  shirts,  each,    .    . 

1. 41 

.62 

Ginghams,  yard,    .    .    . 

•13 

.06 

Carpets,   2-ply    ingrain 

yard 

1. 14 

•50 

Black  pepper,  pound. 

•19 

.09 

Molasses,  gallon,    .    .    . 

.69 

•32 

Freight   rate,    per  ton 

per  mile 

2.00 

•92 

Average  reduction  in  10  farm  products,  21.  i  per  cent. 
Average  reduction  in  19  other  products,  55.4  per  cent. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  writer  has  made  the  following  table  showing  what  quantities  of 
commodities  certain  amounts  of  agricultural  products  would  buy  in  1873 
and  in  1891. 

Table  No.  28. 

Table  Shoiving  Relative    Values  of  Principal  Farm  Products  and 

Articles  of  Consumption  in  iSjs  ^'^d  iSgi: 


1000  pounds  cotton   would 

buy  .        ........ 

1000  pounds  beef  would  buy 
1000  pounds  pork  would  buy 
woo  pounds  bacou  andhams 

would  buy 

1000  pounds  butter   would 

buy 

1000  pounds  tobacco  would 

buy 

100  bushels  corn  would  buy 
100  bu.shels   wheat     would 

buy ■  .    . 


Gallons  of  Oil.  '  Pounds  of  Sugar.  Pounds  of  Nails 


Total  above,   ....    3,742 


1,428 


2,071 
1,243 


1,328     1,176 
9,617  i  7,527 


-754      3,832 
9S2       1,282 


1,035 

1,157 

2,543 

1,526 
1,007 


1,319 

1,554 

3,553 

1,886 
1,273 

2,509 


11,635     17,208    36,148 


5,322 
3,010 

3,172 

7,795 

4,677 
3,086 


Yards  of  Sheet- 


,412  1,464 
490  849 
504        S63 

602     I,  I II 

,359  i  2,123 


Yards  of  Drill-    Yards  of  Shirt- 


1000  pounds  cotton    would 

buy    .    .  1,330  I     1,560 

1000  pounds  beef  would  buy'  462  873 
1000  pounds  pork  would  buy  1  475  1  920 
1000    pounds     bacon     andj 

hams  would  buy  .     .    .    .'      568       1,185 
1000  pounds  butter  would] 

buy I  1,281      2,262 

TOGO  pounds  tobacco  would! 

buy 680 

TOO  bushels  coru  would  buy      458 
100    bushels    wheat  would 

buy '     964 


Total, 


.  :  6,218     10,506    4,454    6,305 


1873. 

1891. 

.873. 

600 

1,666 

P5 

2,810 
914 

716 

1,266 

1,091 

1,616 

2,416 

2,461 

858 
579 

1,450 
956 

'•isli 

1,225 

1,550 

1.840 

7,830 

11,220 

12,192 

3,389 
1,898 

2,000 


2,576 


It  is  certain  that  this  result  could  not  have  been  reached  through 
free  trade.  The  main  purpose  of  the  policy  of  free  trade  is  to  develop 
manufacturing  in  certain  localities  or  countries,  thus  creating  monopolies 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


and  rendering  the  rest  of  the  world  dependent  on  them.  The 
great  purpose  of  Richard  Cobden  and  the  free  traders  of  England  in 
their  attempts  to  secure  the  establishment  of  universal  free  trade,  was  to 
prevent  competing  manufactories  from  rising  in  the  United  States  and 
Continental  Europe,  thus  leaving  to  themselves  a  monopoly  of  manufac- 
turing. Again,  a  monopoly  once  acquired,  such  as  the  British  manufac- 
turers possessed  in  1846  could  more  easily  be  maintained  under  free  trade. 
In  fact,  it  was  only  by  the  removal  of  tariff  barriers  in  other  countries 
that  it  would  become  possible  for  British  manufacturers  to  destroy, 
through  ruinous  competition,  the  rising  industries  of  other  countries, 
and  then  step  in  and  control  their  markets.  That  this  has  been  the  policy 
pursued  by  British  manufacturers  since  the  battle  of  Waterloo  is  fully 
established.  It  is  a  mistaken  notion  that  competition  is  waged  for  the 
benefit  of  consumers.  Mr.  David  Syme,  a  very  able  Englishman,  who 
was  thoroughly  conversant  with  their  methods,  became  an  ardent  protec- 
tionist when  he  removed  to  Australia. 
He  said: 

It  is  quite  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  competitiort  invariably  tends  to  reduce 
prices.  It  is  only  when  sellers  compete  that  prices  are  lowered,  for  when  buyers 
compete  they  are  invariably  raised.  The  object  of  the  producer  in  engaging  in  any 
branch  of  industry  being  profit,  he  will  naturally  take  all  the  means  at  his  com- 
mand to  increase  that  profit  to  the  utmost.  But  a  man  will  be  able  to  make  a  larger 
profit  if  he  has  the  whole  market  to  himself  than  if  he  shared  it  with  another,  and, 
as  a  rule,  the  greater  the  amount  of  competition  in  a  given  market,  the  smaller  will 
be  the  amount  of  profit  to  be  divided  among  the  competitors.  It  will  thus  become 
the  object  of  every  competitor  to  reduce  the  number  of  his  rivals.  The  tendency 
of  competition  will,  therefore,  be  in  the  direction  of  a  monopoly.  A  monopoly  is 
said  to  exist  when  one  man,  or  several  acting  together,  holds  entire  possession  of 
any  commodity  or  controls  any  market.  Competition  exists  when  possession  is 
disputed.  If  competitors,  however,  act  exclusively  with  a  view  to  their  own  inter- 
ests, as  we  are  told  they  must,  it  will  be  their  main  object  to  reduce  competition 
to  a  minimum,  or,  in  other  words,  to  create  a  monopoly.  Thus  the  principle  from 
which  the  deductionist  started,  namely,  the  sufficiency  of  self-interest,  instead  of 
tending  to  competition,  leads  back  ultimately  to  restriction  in  its  worst  possible 
form. 

The  profits  of  producers  are  largest  when  consumption  is  in  excess  of  produc- 
tion, and  the  prospects  of  sharing  in  these  induces  competition.  When  production 
overtakes  consumption,  profits  are  reduced,  and  no  more  competitors  enter  the  field. 

When  production  is  in  excess  of  consumption,  and  competition  goes  on  as 
before,  profits  may  cease  altogether,  and  then  begins  the  struggle  for  existence 
among  competitors.  Each  competitor  will  now  endeavor  to  obtain  the  customers 
of  the  others,  by  fair  means  or  foul,  and  the  inevitable  result  will  be  that  strength 
and  cunning,  as  in  the  animal  world,  will  prevail,  while  the  weak  and  honest 
trader  will  go  to  the  wall.  In  order  to  render  competition  successful,  in  other 
words,  to  establish  a  monopoly,  one  of  two  things,  or  both  are  requisite  on  the 
part  of  a  competitor.  The  first  is  the  command  of  a  large  capital ;  the 
the  absence  of  all  moral  principle.' 


TARIFF  QCFSTIOX  IX  THE  VXITED  STATES. 


The  historj'  of  nations  shows  that  it  has  been  whollj-  through  the 
policy  of  protection  that  manufacturing  has  been  extended  in  the  United 
States  and  Continental  countries  against  British  competition,  thus  bring- 
ing into  the  field  producers  who  are  offering  their  wares  for  sale  in  com- 
petition with  each  other  at  fair  prices.  Mr.  Cobden  well  understood  the 
effect  of  such  wide  extension  of  production.  He  knew  that  it  would  result 
in  destroj-ing  that  monopoly  which  British  manufacturers  then  held  and 
were  then  seeking  to  perpetuate.  Speaking  of  the  unfair  methods  resorted 
to  by  British  manufacturers  in  order  to  destroj-  rival  industries  in  other 
countries,  Mr.  Sjme  sajs : 

The  manner  in  -which  English  capital  is  used  to  maintain  England's  manu- 
facturing supremacy  is  well  understood  abroad.  In  any  quarter  of  the  glo1)e  where 
a  competitor  shows  himself  who  is  likely  to  interfere  with  her  monopoly,  immedi- 
ately the  capital  of  her  manufacturers  is  massed  in  that  particular  quarter,  and 
goods  are  exported  in  large  quantities,  and  sold  at  such  prices,  that  outside  com- 
petition is  effectually  crushed  out ' 

Protection  has  not  onlj-  stood  as  a  shield  guarding  our  industries  from 
destruction  through  such  means,  but  it  has  prevented  British  manufac- 
turers from  monopolizing  our  markets  and  compelling  us  to  pay  exorbitant 
prices  for  her  wares.  Instead  of  building  up  monopolies,  protection  has 
been  the  most  powerful  agenc}-  resorted  to  for  preventing  their  existence. 

We  need  not  go  back  of  the  results  of  the  McKinlej-  bill  to  find  proof 
of  this  proposition,  although  everj'  industn,'  which  we  have  establi.shed 
furnishes  an  example  of  this  fact.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that 
as  .soon  as  tin  plate  factories  were  established  under  the  protection 
accorded  by  the  McKinley  bill,  the  Wel-sh  tin  plate  manufacturers  reduced 
their  wages,  in  order  to  make  goods  cheaper  for  our  market.  Attention 
is  again  called  to  a  statement  already  quoted  from  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Taylor,  a  Wel.sh  manufacturer,  in  re.spon.se  to  a  toast  at  a  banquet  given 
by  the  manufacturers  in  England.  He  said:  "There  was  no  doubt  that 
Engli.sh  manufacturers  would  have  to  reduce  the  cost  of  production  if 
they  were  to  maintain  their  hold  of  the  American  trade,  and  he  knew  of 
no  other  source  from  which  relief  could  be  got  than  the  rate  of  wages. ' ' '' 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Gladstone  also  recognized  this  effect  of 
protective  legislation  in  foreign  countries.  "But  still  it  has  necessarily 
had  the  effect  of  dimini.shing  profits  and  wages  in  this  country."' 
The  practice  of  this  policy  by  British  manufacturers  has  prevented 
an  increase  in  wages  in  the  United  States.  By  reducing  wages  and  pro- 
fits in  England  they  have  still  been  able  to  invade  our  markets  with 
their  cheap  wares. 

With  full  knowledge  of  these  facts  free  trade  economists  taunt  us  with 
the  statement  that  an  increase  in  wages  does  not  immediately  follow 

>  Industrial  Science,  p.  68.       *  Aute,  p.  321.       '  Ante,  p.  322. 


TEXTILE  AXD  OTHER  IXDCSTEIES 


increased  duties.  They  say  that  if  the  protectionists'  theorj-  is  true  that 
increased  duties  enable  the  American  manufactiu-er  to  pay  higher  wages, 
he  ought  to  raise  the  wages  of  his  employees  as  soon  as  he  has  induced 
Congress  to  increase  the  tariff.  While  this  would  be  possible  if  the  dutj- 
were  placed  high  enough  to  exclude  the  foreign  rival,  it  is  made  impos- 
sible by  the  competition  which  is  continued  through  reduced  wages  and 
profits  in  Great  Britain. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  while  the  process  of  cheapening  the 
price  of  commodities  has  been  going  on,  the  wages  of  our  artisans  have 
steadily  increased,  thus  enabling  them  to  derive  a  double  advantage  from 
the  policy  of  protection:  (i)  an  increased  income;  (2)  an  enlarged 
purchasing  power  of  the  day's  earnings.  These  benefits  are  independent 
of  the  more  steady  and  increased  emplo\-meut  which  has  been  afforded 
through  our  constantly  increased  production,  and  the  expansion  of  our 
industries. 

Tiu-ning  to  the  census  of  1S60,  it  is  found  that  in  the  last  year 
of  the  low  tariff  period  the  umnber  of  employees  in  the  manufacturing 
establishments  of  the  United  States  was  1,311,246,  with  wages  amounting 
to  $378,878,966,  or  S28S  each.  In  1890  the  number  of  laborers  in  the 
maniifacturing  establishments  of  our  comitrj-  was  4,712,622,  earning 
$2,283,216,529  in  wages,  or  $484  each,  an  increase  of  68  per  cent.  This 
it  will  be  conceded  is  a  ven.-  low  estimate  of  the  increased  earnings  from 
1S60  to  1890.  There  is  no  doubt  that  wages  in  textiles  and  in  manj- 
other  branches  of  industry-  have  doubled  under  protection,  since  1S60. 

In  examining  weekly  wages  in  the  United  States  since  1830  it  is  found 
that  ver>-  slight  if  any  increase  occurred  during  the  low  tariff  period  from 
1835  to  1840.  while  it  is  known  that  a  vers-  material  advance  took  place 
from  1824  to  1832,  and  from  1842  to  1S46,  under  the  stimulus  which  was 
given  to  industries  by  the  protective  legislation  of  those  years.  From 
1S46  to  i860  wages  in  those  industries  which  were  affected  by  competing 
imports  from  Great  Britain  practically  stood  still,  although  tlae  causes 
which  contributed  to  an  improvement  in  certain  branches  of  employment, 
such  as  railroad  building,  brought  about  a  small  increase  in  employments 
so  affected. 

An  investigation  was  made  by  Mr.  Aldrich  and  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee on  Finance,  published  in  March.  1S92,  known  as  the  report  on 
"Wholesale  Prices,  Wages  and  Transportation,"  into  the  changes  which 
occurred  in  wages  in  certain  industries  from  1840  to  189 1.  It  would  be 
unfair  to  make  comparisons  beUveen  1840  and  i860,  because  1840  was  a 
year  of  depression  following  the  calamities  which  had  befallen  the  countr>- 
in  1837:  while  in  1S60  the  crops  had  been  large  and  some  causes  contrib- 
uted to  a  slight  improvement  during  this  year  as  compared  with  previous 
years  of  the  low  tariff  period.  Colonel  Carroll  D.  Wright,  of  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics,  who  participated  in  this  investigation,  in  an  article  published 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  EXITED  STATES. 


ill  the  "Forum,"  of  October,  1893,  mentions  some  of  the  changes  which 
occurred,  as  disclosed  b}-  the  report  referred  to. 

The  following  table  shows  daily  wages  in  several  occupations  in  1840, 
i860  and  1891: 


Occupations  (New  York  City) 

Compositors, 

Carpenters  (Connecticut), 

Carpenters  (New  York), 

Painters  (New  York), 

Wheelwrights,      

Cotton  weavers  (women,  in  Massachu- 
setts),       

Frame  spinners  (women), 

Wool  spinners  (both  jack  and  mule),    . 

Puddlers  (Duncannon,  Pa.), 

Drillers  (New  Jersey), 

Blasters  (New  Jersey) 

Unskilled  laborers  (mining,  Cornwall, 
Pa.), 


I0.62.5 

J0.5 

1.50 

2.C 

1.25  to  1.60 

1.25  to  I.' 

1.50 

2.C 

1.50 

2.C 

1-25 

I.. 

.62 

.62 

Below  1. 00 

I.C 

2.30 

2.C 

•75 

I.C 

■75 

I.C 

•50 

|2.CX3 

3-00 

3.00103.25 

350 

3- 50 
2.50 

1.05 
Above  1.05 
1-35  to  1.75 


Teachers'  Wages,  Per  Annum. 


Principal  (Boys'  High  Schools,  Baltimore,  Md.),  . 
Principals  (Primary  schools,  boys  and  girls,  Balti- 
more, Md.), 


1^,500.00        |2,40O.C 

300.00  696  c 


Wages  of  Teachers  Per  Month  in  Remote  Districts  of  Barnstable 
County,  Massachusetts. 


Men, 
Worn 


^40.73 
19.12 


f68.i8 
34.88 


Colonel  Wright  states  in  his  article  that  "the  years  1840  and  1891 
represent  the  opposite  extreme  limits  of  general  conditions.  Prices  were 
low  ill  1840;  labor  was  low." 

The  returns  from  twenty-two  industries  and  from  nearly  one  hundred 
distinct  establishments  showed  an  increase  in  wages  from  1840  to  i860  of 
17.5  per  cent,  while  the  average  increase  of  wages  in  the  same  number  of 
establishments  from  i860  to  1891  was  68.6  per  cent. 

It  is  fair  to  assume  from  what  Colonel  Wright  says,  and  from  the 
fact  that  1S40  was  a  year  of  extremely  low  wages  and  depression,  that 
had  1846  been  taken  as  the  basis  of  comparison  with  i860,  it  would  have 
been  found  that  no  increase  had  taken  place  during  the  low  tariff  period 


TEXTILE  AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


following  1846  and  closing  with  i860.  It  appears  from  the  figures 
given  bj'  Colonel  Wright  that  there  was  actual  decline  in  the  wages  of 
cotton  weavers  and  frame  spinners  between  1840  and  i860.  These 
industries,  it  will  be  noted,  were  directly  affected  by  the  increased  imports 
of  competing  commodities  after  the  adoption  of  the  Walker  tariff  of  1846. 
The  improvement  which  is  shown  in  the  building  trades  between  1840 
and  i860  cannot  be  attributed  to  any  general  advance  which  might  be 
afFected  by  the  tariff,  but  to  general  conditions  resulting  from  other  causes. 
It  has  been  shown  that  these  industries  enjoy  a  degree  of  natural  protec- 
tion and  that  they  are  not  directly  affected  by  the  depressing  influences 
of  competing  imports.  But  we  are  supplied  with  definite  information 
upon  the  changes  which  have  occurred  in  the  wages  of  those  employed  in 
textile  industries,  by  the  excessive  competition  to  which  they  were  sub- 
jected during  the  low  tariff  period  between  1846  and  i860,  and  the  higher 
wages  which  were  made  possible  under  protection  .since  i860. 

The  Hon.  Henry  W.  Blair,  of  New  Hampshire,  in  a  speech  delivered 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  January  16-25,  1894,  presented  a  letter 
from  John  P.  Bresiel,  of  Laconia,  N.  H.,  dated  January  2,  1894,  showing 
the  wages  made  in  the  Granite  Hosiery  Mills  of  Laconia,  N.  H.,  from 
1846  to  i860  and  from  i860  to  1892,  giving  the  names  of  the  operatives 
and  the  number  of  days  worked  and  wages  earned  by  each  operative,  taken 
from  the  books  of  the  company  as  follows : 

In  June,  1892,  in  our  mills  the  total  pay  roll  was  J669S.  79.  The  total  number 
of  hours  worked  (not  including  bookkeeper  and  clerk)  was  4265.  The  average 
wages  per  day  was  f  1.57,  not  including  the  salaries  of  bookkeeper  and  clerk.  Briefly 
stated,  these  pay  rolls  show  the  following  wage  rates  for  the  different  periods : 

184S,  Walker  tariff,  50.7  cents  per  day  of  14  hours,  3.62  cents  per  hour.  1853, 
Walker  tariiT,  57.4  cents  per  day  of  14  hours,  4.1  cents  per  hour.  i86t,  Morrill 
tariff,  about  50  cents  per  day  of  11  hours,  4  6-11  cents  per  hour.  1892,  McKinlej- 
tariff,  $1.57  per  day  of  10  hours,  15.7  cents  per  hour. 

For  1893  the  wage  rate  showed  a  slight  increase  over  1892,  until  the  panic  stopped 
business.  Since  October  our  mills  have  been  idle,  and  nearly  all  the  mills  in  this  city. 
Such  as  have  attempted  to  run  have  reduced  wages  from  to  per  cent  to  25  per  cent, 
and  no  mill  has  employed  half  its  working  force  at  the  reduced  rates  of  pay. 

Upon  the  question  of  increased  wages  between  i860  and  1880,  we 
have  the  statement  of  Mr.  Edward  Atkinson,  a  free  trade  economist,  from 
an  article  in  the  "Forum"  of  July,  1888,  as  follows: 

By  analyzing  the  rates  of  wages  as  well  as  their  purchasing  power,  it  is  proved 
that  since  i860,  subject  to  temporary  reduction  in  the  purchasing  power  of  wages 
during  the  period  of  war  and  paper  money,  the  constant  tendency  of  wages  or  earn- 
ings has  been  to  rise  both  in  rate  and  in  purchasing  power.  By  selecting  the  rates 
of  wages  given  in  Vol.  XX  of  the  Census  of  the  United  States,  compiled  by  Mr. 
Joseph  D.  Weeks,  and  assorting  these  rates  by  classes,  the  data  being  taken  from 
over  100  establishments,  I  find  that  there  is  an  increasing  disparity  among  those 
who  constitute  the  working  classes  in  the  strictest  sense.  Given  a  standard  of  the 
average  consumption  of   food,  fuel   and  materials  for  clothing,  rent  being  omitted 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


because  it  varies  so  much  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  it  is  apparent  to  any 
one  who  will  devote  sufficient  time  to  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, that  since  1865  the  wages  of  foremen,  overseers,  boss-blacksmiths,  specially 
skilled  cabinet-makers,  and  the  like,  have  advanced  108  percent;  average  mechanics, 
ngineers,  carpenters,  machinists,  and  the  like,  90  per  cent;  factory  operatives  and 
all  persons  engaged  in  the  ordinary  arts  of  making  stoves,  boots,  hats,  cars,  wagons 
and  the  like,  78  per  cent;  and  common  laborers  only  66  per  cent. 

The  facts  presented  under  this  head  are  so  universallj-  concurred  in 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  multiply  authorities  to  show  that  under  the  low 
tariff  from  1846  to  i860,  when  British  manufacturers  were  monopolizing- 
our  markets,  we  passed  through  a  period  of  high  prices  for  all  manufac- 
tured goods,  which  we  were  compelled  to  purchase,  low  prices  for  farm 
produce  and  low  wages  in  all  branches  of  industry;  while  since  i860  the 
price  of  manufactured  goods  has  steadily  declined, and  wages  have  advanced 
more  than  ever  before  during  an  equal  period.  And  when  protection 
was  assailed  by  the  Democratic  party,  upon  the  election  of  President 
Cleveland,  in  1892,  the  American  artisans  and  laborers  were  receiving 
the  highest  wages,  both  in  money  and  in  purchasing  power,  that  have  ever 
been  paid  to  wage-earners  since  the  beginning  of  time. 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  stated  that  the  policy  of  protection  in  the 
United  States  has  brought  about  the  following  results: 

First.  When  a  duty  is  imposed  upon  a  competing  commodity  suffi- 
cient to  afford  adequate  protection  to  American  capital  and  labor,  capi- 
talists invest  money  in  the  building  of  factories  for  its  production. 

Second.  Labor  is  employed  at  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in  any 
other  country. 

Third.  Domestic  competition  destroys  foreign  monopoly  and  brings 
down  the  price  to  a  point  which  affords  a  fair  profit  to  our  capitalists  and 
good  wages  to  our  labor. 

These  three  things  have  occurred  in  every  instance  where  protective 
duties  have  been  imposed  since  the  first  tariff  laws  were  adopted  in  1789. 
In  all  cases  where  duties  have  been  reduced  to  a  point  which  would  not 
compensate  for  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  between  the  United 
States  and  foreign  countries,  based  on  the  American  rate  of  wages,  our 
manufacturers  have  been  compelled  to  reduce  wages  to  meet  the  new  con- 
ditions, and  in  many  instances  have  been  driven  out  of  business  and  their 
factories  closed.  When  competing  imports  have  been  encouraged  "by  low 
duties,  the  progress  of  our  industries  has  been  arrested,  and  our  laborers 
deprived  of  employment,  while  it  has  resulted  in  an  improved  condition, 
increased  employment,  and  benefits  to  foreign  producers.  Our  experi- 
ence has  shown  that  only  through  the  maintenance  of  adequate  protection 
can  the  benefits  stated  be  enjoyed  and  the  disastrous  results  be  avoided. 

In  preceding  chapters,  in  connection  with  the  treatment  of  various 
industries,  tables  showing  the  rate  of  wages  paid  in  the  United  States, 
compared  with  those  paid  in  Great  Britain  and  other  countries,  have  been 


TEXTILE  AXD  OTHER  INDUSTRIES. 


Table  No.   29. 

Ta6/e  Shocving  the  Average  Weekly  Wages  Paid  in  the  General  Trades  in  Europe 
with  those  Paid  in  Similar  Trades  in  the  United  States,  1890.  Compiled  from 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  of  Great  Britain,  and  Consular  Report  of 
the  Department  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


Occupations. 


Bricklayers,  .... 

Bricklayers'  tenders, 

Masons 

Masons'  tenders, 

Plasterers,      .        .    . 

Plasterers'  tenders, 

vSlaters, 

Plumbers 

Carpenters,    .... 

Painters, 

Bakers,        

Blacksmiths,      .    .    . 

Blacksmiths'  strikers 

Bookbinders,     .    .    . 

Brickmakers,    .    .    . 

Butchers 

Brass  founders,     .    . 

Cabinet-makers,  .    . 

Confectioners,  .    .    . 

Cigar-makers,  .    .    . 

Coopers 

Cutlers, 

Drivers,   draymen  and 
teamsters,  .    . 

Drivers,    cab   and  car- 
riage,     ... 

Drivers,  street  railway 

Engravers,     ,    .    ,    . 

Hatters 

Horseshoers,      .    . 

Laborers,  porters,  etc. 

Lithographers, 

Millwrights, 

Printers,     .    .    . 

Saddle  and  Harness 
makers,      .    . 

Sailmakers,   .    . 

Shoemakers, 

Stevedores,    .    . 

Tinsmiths,      .    . 

Machinists,    .    . 

Upholsterers,     . 


I22.00 
10.75 
21.00 
10.25 
22.50 
12.50 
17-50 
19.25 
1525 
12.00 

9- 50 
14.00 

9-75 
15-25 
13-70 


15-50 
9-75 

I2.O0 

14  00 

15-50 

11.50 
13-50 

11.00 
15.00 
II. 86 


$7.80 
4.96 
7-74 
4-50 
7-74 
5-06 
7-33 
7.80 
7.5s 
7-43 
6.50 
*7-37 
*5.3o 
6.92 
6.27 


6.07 
7.29 
7.20 


4.20 
5-04 

»S.38 
6.00 

^6.32 
4.08 
7.68 
6.97 

*7-i7 

*6.63 
8.16 
6.00 

*8.44 
*6.56 
8.50 
6.72 


J4.21    $s.74 
2.92      3-13 


4-43  I 
2.91 
4.20 
4.26 
4.11 
4.S2 

4.00 
2.94 
4.20 
3-98 

4-38 
4-^5 
3-43 
3-63 
3-97 
3-90 


6.34 
3-23 
5-65 
6.10 
6.20 


I4-56 !  I3.55 

3-22 


5-81 

4.72 

1^5.32j 

6.54 
6.14 
4-85 
4.69 
5-58 
5.16 


i-96  1    5-57 


3.21 
3-44 
5-12 
4-36 
3-61 
3- 


5-59  I  7-07 

4- 18  i  6.74 

,    .       \  6.64 

3-69  t  5-70 

2:85  '  '^  - 


I4-80    15-21 


2.99 
5-27 
3-50 
5-03 
3-40 
4-35 
5.18 
4-74 


S4-32 
2.45 
6.72 
2.88 
4.61 
2.55 
4.20 
4.32 
3-30 


2.92 

3-72 
2.72 
3-42 
2. So 
2.91 
4.20 
5-76 
3-36 
3-80 
3-66 
3-91 

360 


.    .    .  j  3-60 

3-84  I  2.95 

6.35  4-66 

3-84  I  5-10 

4-65  I  3-75 

3.61  I  2.88 

5.51  I  4.8S 
6.30  I 
5-93 


3-»» 
5-20  I 
4-43  I 
4.68 


4-92 

5-59  , 
5-84' 
3-30 
4.7S 
4.93 


5-76 


2.96 


TARIFF  QVESriON  IK  THE  FNn'FD  STATES. 


given.  For  a  comparison  of  wages  paid  in  general  trades  in  the  United 
States,  Great  Britain  and  Continental  countries  attention  is  called  to 
Table  No.  29  on  page  719.  The  wages  given  for  Great  Britain  were  com- 
piled by  the  writer  from  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor, 
as  di.sclosed  by  its  investigation  in  1891  and  1892.  The  wages  for  Conti- 
nental countries  were  taken  from  the  United  States  Con.sular  Investigation, 
made  in  1884.  Those  for  the  United  States  are  the  average  wages  paid  in 
New  York  and  Chicago  in  1884,  as  reported  by  the  United  States  Consular 
Investigation.  It  should  be  noted  that  no  allowance  is  made  for  the  advance 
which  has  taken  place  in  the  wages  paid  in  Continental  countries  since  1S84. 
Table  No.  30  exhibits  wages  paid  in  various  occupations  in  Great  Britain  in 
1 891  and  1892,  compiled  from  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor. 

T.\BLE  No.   30. 
Tadle  Showmg  the  Average  Weekly  Wages  Paid  in  Great  Britain  to  the 
Following  Trades  and  Occupations,  as  Stated  Below.     Compiled  from 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Labor  of  Great  Britaiti. 


OCCUPATIONS- 


Coachniakers,     . 

Compositors,  job  work,    .    .    . 
morning  papers, 
' '  evening        ' ' 

"  weekly  " 

Ga.s  stokers 

' '    inremen, 

Chemical  workers 

Copper  "  .... 

Sail  "  

Glass  bottle  makers,      .... 

Seed  crushers, 

Sawyers 

Ship  assistants, 

Mat  makers,  

Wages  paid  by  cities: 

Policemen,  

Pavement  and  sewers,      .    . 

Water  works,       

Wages  paid  by  goverjunent: 

Dockyards, 

Royal  engineers, 

Ordnance  store  department, 
Iron  workers: 

Iron  molders  (Scotland!,     . 
(Aberdeen),    . 
Blast  furnacemen  (Cleveland), 
Blast     furnacemen     (Cumber- 
land and  Lancashire),  .    .    . 
Iron   founders  (United  King- 
dom),      

Nut  and  bolt  workers,  •    ■    - 

Blast  furnacemen  (Ayershire) 

Chair  makers 


7- 50 
7-58 
7.66 
7.80 


6.92 

5-74 
4-25 


6.46 
4.96 
5  12 


7.92 
7.92 


7.68 
7.68 
7.28 
6.20 


Hand  nail  makers 

Lock  and  key  smiths,     .    .    .    . 

Spike  nail  makers, 

Pocket  knife  cutlers, 

Cutlers,  full  time  average: 

Bone,  half  and  scale  cutlers, ") 

Scissors  grinders,    ■  | 

File  grinders,  I 

Silversmiths,  | 

Silver  buffers, 

Edge  tool  grinders,  J 

Street  car  employes: 

Carmen, 

Cartmen 

Cab  drivers 

Horsemen, 

Railway  service: 

Conductors, 

Checkers 

Clerks, 

Engine  drivers, 

Foremen,        

Firemen 

Guards 

Porters, 

Plate  layers 

Passenger  porters 

Receivers 

Shunters 

Signalmen 

Waymen, 

Yardmen 


14-42 
4-32 
3.16 
4.S0 


5-40 
5-04 
4.20 
5-76 

5-28 
6.24 
6.00 
8.64 
8,28 
6.24 
5.16 
6.36 
4.08 
4-. -^2 
3-60 
6.24 
4-80 

5-22 
4.08 
5.76 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Triumph  of  Democracy  and  Free  Trade. 

The  recent  revival  of  the  tariff  question  as  a  political  issue,  the 
endorsement  of  the  principles  of  free  trade  by  the  Democratic  party,  the 
defeat  of  Benjamin  Harrison  in  1892,  the  repeal  of  the  McKinley  bill,  and 
the  passage  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  as  the  first  steps  toward  making 
the  system  of  free  imports  the  permanent  policy  of  our  nation,  are  events 
of  the  gravest  character.  To  examine  fully  the  causes  which  led  to  this 
industrial  revolution,  and  the  interests  thereby  affected,  would  require 
more  space  than  can  be  devoted  to  the  subject  in  this  chapter.  The 
most  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  leaders  of  the  Democratic  party 
is,  that  they  have  plunged  their  followers  and  tfae  country  into  the 
calamities  which  have  followed  their  work,  through  ignorance  of  economic 
principles,  and  that  without  appreciating  the  consequence  of  their  acts 
many  of  them  took  a  leap  in  the  dark  to  secure  a  temporary-  party  advan- 
tage. Yet  when  we  view  the  record  of  the  Democratic  party  upon  public 
questions  during  the  past  fifty  years,  little  else  could  have  been  ex- 
pected. It  had  been  thirty  years  since  the  nation  abandoned  a  low  tariff 
and  returned  to  protection.  Only  the  older  citizens  had  lived  in  1857  and 
witnessed  the  disaster  of  the  low  tariff  at  that  time.  Since  i860  millions 
of  immigrants  have  come  to  our  shores.  A  new  generation  of  voters  now 
controls  parties  and  the  destiny  of  the  nation.  To  the  present  generation, 
at  least,  the  tariff  question  was  new,  intricate  and  difficult  to  solve.  The 
free  trade  agitators  shrewdly  concealed  their  ultimate  purpose,  presented 
false  issues  and  wrote  more  to  mislead,  deceive  and  arouse  the  prejudices 
of  the  people  against  protection  and  those  who  employ  labor,  than  to 
throw  light  on  the  merits  of  the  controvers}^  and  to  direct  attention  to  a 
consideration  of  the  real  question  involved.  It  is  openly  charged  by  pro- 
tectionists that  the  movement  to  overthrow  protection  was  started  by  rep- 
resentatives of  the  manufacturers  of  Great  Britain.  The  loss  of  foreign 
markets,  the  intense  rivalry  to  which  British  manufacturers  were  sub- 
jected at  home  and  abroad,  and  the  necessity  of  finding  new  markets 
for  their  wares,  have  been  shown  in  preceding  chapters.  The  increase  of 
protective  duties  by  all  the  leading  commercial  nations,  and  the  consequent 
ri.se  of  rival  industries  presented  a  condition  which  menaced  their  very 
existence.  This  situation  prompted  another  effort  to  overthrow  protec- 
tion in  the  United  States,  and  open  a  market  more  desirable  and  profit- 
able than  those  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world  combined.  In  1866  the  Cobden 
46  (721J 


Remd 
tariff 
legislation. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  LNITEI)  STATES. 


Club  had  been  organized  for  the  purpose  of  extending  free  trade  principles 
in  other  countries,  and  in  1880  the  United  States  was  selected  as  the 
definite  field  of  its  operations. 

On  July  12,  1880,  the  London  Times  in  giving  an  account  of  a  meet- 

of  this  club  said: 

How  free  trade  will  come  some  day  to  the  United  States  must  be  left  to  the 
Cobden  Club  and  to  its  twelve  Cabinet  Ministers  in  their  unofficial  capacity  to  decide. 
.  .  It  is  to  the  New  World  tliat  the  club  is  chiefly  looking  as  the  most  likely 
sphere  for  its  vigorous  foreign  policy.  It  has  done  what  it  can  for  Europe  and  is  now 
turning  its  eyes  westward  and  bracing  itself  for  the  struggle  which  is  to  come.  So  it 
II  go  on  until  reason  has  destroyed  protection  in  the  great  stronghold  (United  States) 
which  it  has  intrenched  itself.  .  .  .  We  intend  to  break  down  the  protecting 
system  in  the  United  States  and  to  substitute  the  British  system.  That  done,  our 
victory  is  complete  and  final. 

In  1879,  Mr.  Thomas  Bayley  Potter,  the  secretary  of  the  club,  and 
also  a  member  of  parliament,  visited  the  United  States  for  the  purpose 
of  looking  over  the  field  and  effecting  an  organization  in  this  country. 
He  visited  the  vario«s  cities  and  industrial  centres  of  the  country  and 
established  agencies  in  New  York  and  Chicago.  Mr.  Poultney  Bigelow 
was  made  the  agent  in  New  York  and  Mr.  Alfred  Bishop  Mason  the  agent 
of  the  club  in  Chicago.  The  New  York  Free  Trade  Club  had  already  been 
organized.  On  July  26,  1888,  the  New  York  Evening  Post  stated  that 
this  club  was  "  on  a  sound  financial  basis  with  working  capital  assured 
to  it  for  some  years  to  come,"  and  that  it  had  "decided  to  enter  the 
coming  political  campaign  actively,  directing  its  energies  largely  to  the 
Congressional  districts. ' '  It  further  stated  that  ' '  a  strong  effort  will  be 
made  to  compel  candidates  for  Congress  everywhere  to  declare  themselves 
on  one  side  or  the  other  "  of  the  tarifi"  question. 

Mr.  James  M.  Swank  tells  us'  that:  "  Mr.  Potter  insolently  said  to 
Mr.  Dudley  [Hon.  Thomas  H.  Dudley,  former  United  States  Consul  to 
Liverpool],  during  his  visit  to  this  country  in  1879,  that  'Englishmen 
don't  object  to  your  having  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.'  "  That  is,  a  tariif 
which  is  so  low  that  it  will  not  obstruct  the  sale  of  British  goods  in 
American  markets.  Upon  Mr.  Potter's  return  from  the  United  States, 
at  a  dinner  given  by  the  Cobden  Club,  July  10,  1880,  he  said:  "The 
Cobden  Club  is  now  about  to  enter  a  contest  with  a  foe  worthy  of  its  .steel. 
Their  eyes  are  now  turned  westward ;  they  are  going  to  encounter  their 
friends  in  the  United  States,  and  I  believe  they  will  ultimately  be  victori- 
ous. ' '  The  foothold  which  this  organization  had  soon  gained  in  the  United 
States  is  shown  by  its  annual  report  of  1877,  which  includes  the  names 
of  130  prominent  citizens  of  our  country  among  its  members.  In  this  list 
is  found  the  names  of  the  mo.st  influential  members  of  the  Democratic 
party,   professors  in  leading  colleges,  and  those  persistent  agitators  for 

'  Footprints  of  the  British  I,ion,  p.  7. 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


"tariff  reform,"    who    have  filled   the  columns  of  our  newspapers  and 
magazines  with  their  free  trade  arguments. 

With  this  working  force  a  constant  and  unremitting  agitation  of  the 
question  could  be  kept  up.  With  two  great  branch  organizations,  such  as 
were  located  in  New  York  and  Chicago,  the  country  could  be  flooded,  as 
it  was,  with  free  trade  literature  emanating  from  the  central  office  in 
England,  without  arousing  too  much  suspicion  that  the  movement  was 
being  directed  and  public  sentiment  being  moulded  by  the  brains  of  the 
Cobden  Club.  While  the  allies  in  the  United  States  would  apparently  be 
playing  the  political  game,  the  checkers  on  the  board  were  actually  being 
moved  by  the  British  lion.  From  the  date  of  the  meeting  of  the  Cobden 
Club  in  1880,  for  years  the  United  States  was  flooded  with  its  pamphlets 
and  books,  many  of  which  reiterated  the  exploded  theories  of  Cobdenism, 
while  others  were  directed  especially  against  the  protective  policy  of  the 
United  States,  and  in  the  attempt  to  discredit  it  made  most  scandalous 
misrepresentations  of  facts  and  industrial  conditions.  So  far  as  economic 
thought  is  concerned,  there  has  been  nothing  added  to  the  question  by  their 
disciples  in  America.  In  fact,  not  since  i860  has  there  been  any  improve- 
ment on  the  fallacies  and  false  prophecies  which  were  put  out  by  the  Man- 
chester school.  The  plan  of  campaign  pursued  by  the  Cobden  Club  in  the 
United  States  in  the  distribution  of  literature  and  interference  in  Congres- 
sional elections  was  at  first  bold  and  undisguised.  The  following  single 
instance  will  illustrate  their  mode  of  operating:  The  Chicago  Manufacturer 
of  October  18,  1881,  gives  an  account  of  a  visit  of  one  Professor  Sheldon,  of 
London,  to  one  of  the  leading  agricultural  journals  of  that  city,  and  of  his 
urging  its  editor  to  publish  in  full  the  ' '  Address  to  American  Farmers ' ' 
written  by  Mongredien.  To  the  honor  of  the  editor,  the  request  was 
refu.sed.  The  Manufacturer  further  says:  "  Another  agent  ancl  correspon- 
dent of  the  Cobden  Club,  duly  delegated,  one  Professor  Bigelow,  of  New 
York,  was  in  the  city  a  day  or  two  recently,  consulting  with  local  free 
traders.  He  was  going  to  Indiana,  well  supplied  with  British  pamphlets, 
with  which  he  proposed  to  influence  votes  against  candidates  for  Congress 
who  were  not  pledged  to  propose  or  vote  for  the  abolition  of  import  duties, 
if  elected. ' '  The  attempt  to  meet  these  facts  with  ridicule  and  to  treat  them 
as  a  campaign  cry  raised  by  protectionists  will  not  do.  It  is  an  insolent  and 
unwarranted  interference  in  the  afiairs  of  the  American  people  by  a  com- 
mercial enemy.  Its  purpose  is  to  destroy  our  cities  and  villages,  to  bank- 
rupt our  business  men  and  manufacturers,  to  deprive  our  artisans  of 
employment  and  reduce  them  to  degradation  and  want,  that  British 
manufacturers  may  thrive.  If  one  of  our  merchant  vessels  is  seized  on 
the  high  seas  by  a  British  subject,  indemnity  is  demanded.  If  Great 
Britain  attempts  to  take  a  foot  of  land  from  Venezuela,  it  is  a  violation  of 
the  iSlonroe  doctrine,  and  the  whole  nation  is  fired  with  patriotism 
and  sunmioned  to  arms.     But  the  industrial  policy,  which  is  protecting 


The  plan 


TARIFF  (fVESTIOS  IX  'llIE  UNITED  STATES. 


and  keeping  watch  over  the  homes  and  firesides  of  our  people  can  be 
o\-erthrowii  by  the  fraud,  deception  and  conspiracy  of  foreigners  with 
impunity.  Whole  cities  and  industrial  centres  can  be  as  effectually 
destroyed  by  this  means  as  if  bombarded  with  shot  and  shell. 

The  Cobden  Club  found  a  willing  ally  in  the  Democratic  party.  At 
this  time  its  leaders  were  hunting  about  for  a  new  issue.  Tb.eir 
part\'  had  been  routed  in  every  presidential  election  since  1856,  and 
every  principle  which  they  had  endorsed  since  1833  had  been  repudiated 
and  condemned  by  the  American  people.  The  tariff  question  had  been 
little  discus.sed  since  1 860.  The  questions  brought  into  prominence  by  the 
Civil  War  had  absorbed  public  interest,  while  the  necessities  of  the 
government  for  the  payment  of  pensions,  interest  on  the  public  debt, 
together  with  the  efforts  to  rapidly  reduce  it,  made  a  large  revenue  neces- 
sary. Hence  the  tariff  question  was  taken  out  of  party  politics  for  a  time. 
Hitherto  even  those  who  believed  in  free  trade  or  lower  duties  had  acqui- 
esced in  the  policy  made  necessary  by  the  revenue  requirements.  By 
1882  the  .situation  had  materially  changed.  Free  traders  could  now 
attack  the  tariff  policy  without  being  accused  of  assailing  the  credit  of  the 
nation. 

The  Southern  people,  from  education  and  tradition,  were  opposed  to 
protective  duties.  The  Democrats  of  the  Western  States,  devoted  to  agri- 
culture, could  easily  be  made  to  believe  that  it  was  better  to  buy  their 
manufactured  goods  in  Europe,  where  they  could  be  obtained  the  cheapest. 
New  York  and  the  seaboard  cities  were  filled  with  importers  and  those 
representing  foreign  houses  and  interested  in  foreign  tr^de.  All  of  these 
elements  could  be  relied  upon  to  unite  at  once  under  the  banner  of  free 
trade.  Again,  the  appeal  which  the  free  traders  made  to  the  consumers 
was  very  alluring.  But  above  all  this  the  study  of  economics  had 
been  neglected  b\-  the  people.  The  specious  and  deceptive  arguments 
of  a  few  designing  and  crafty  men,  shaping  and  directing  the  cam- 
paign and  moulding  public  sentiment,  would  create  an  impre.ssion 
against  the  policy  of  protection  among  patriotic  and  conscientious 
cittzens,  who  have  the  highest  regard  for  the  welfare  of  their  own 
countr3^ 

Through  factional  jealousies  and  dissensions  in  the  Republican  party, 
Grover  Cleveland  was  elected  President  of  the  United  States  in  1SS4. 
defeating  James  G.  Blaine,  the  candidate  of  the  Republican  party.  Mr. 
Cleveland  called  to  his  aid  as  his  chief  counselors  members  of  the  Cobden 
Club.  Among  his  cabinet  officers  were  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  William 
Endicott,  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar,  all  members  of  this  organization.  Mr. 
Manning,  who  was  made  Secretary-  of  the  Treasury,  was  known  to 
hold  less  radical  views  on  the  question,  but  in  a  short  time  he  resigned 
from  the  cabinet.  When  Congress  convened  in  December,  1887,  the 
administration    opened    its  warfare    on    the   policy    of   protection   in   the 


TRIU3IPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


President's  message  to  Congress,  which  stated  the  grounds  of  attack  as 
follows: 

Our  scheme  of  taxation,  by  means  of  which  this  needless  surplus  is  taken  from 
the  people  and  put  into  the  public  treasury,  consists  of  a  tariff  or  duty  levied  upon 
importations  from  abroad,  and  internal  revenue  taxes  levied  upon  the  consumption  of 
tobacco  and  spirituous  and  malt  liquors.  It  must  be  conceded  that  none  of  these 
things  subjected  to  internal  revenue  taxation  are,  strictly  speaking,  necessaries;  there 
appears  to  be  no  just  complaint  of  this  taxation  by  the  consumers  of  these  articles, 
and  there  seems  to  be  nothing  so  well  able  to  bear  the  burden  without  hardship  to  any 
portion  of  the  people. 

But  our  present  tariff  laws,  the  vicious,  inequitable  and  illogical  source  of  unne- 
cessary taxation,  ought  to  be  at  ouce  revised  and  amended.  These  lazus,  as  their 
primary  and  plain  effect,  raise  the  price  to  consumers  of  all  articles  impoiicd  and 
subject  to  duty,  by  precisely  the  sum  paid  for  such  duties.  Thus  the  amount  of 
the  duty  measures  the  tax  paid  by  those  who  purchase  for  use  these  imported  articles. 
Many  of  these  things,  however,  are  raised  or  manufactured  in  our  own  country,  and 
the  duties  now  levied  upon  foreign  goods  and  products  are  called  protection  to  these 
home  manufactures,  because  they  render  it  possible  for  those  of  our  own  people  who 
are  manufacturers,  to  make  these  taxed  articles  and  sell  them  for  a  price  equal  to  that 
demanded  for  the  imported  goods  that  have  paid  customs  duty.  So  it  happens  that 
while  comparatively  a  few  use  the  imported  articles,  millions  of  our  people,  who  never 
use  and  never  saw  any  of  the  foreign  products,  purchase  and  use  things  of  the  same 
kind  made  in  this  country,  and  pay  therefore  nearly  or  quite  the  same  enhanced  price 
zi'hich  the  duty  adds  to  the  imported  articles.  Those  who  buy  imports  pay  the  duty 
charjrcd  thereon  into  the  public  treasury,  but  the  great  majority  of  our  citizens,  who 
buy  domestic  articles  of  the  same  class,  pay  a  sum  at  least  approximately  equal  to  this 
duty  to  the  home  manufacturer. 

The  first  objection  relates  to  the  surpkis  in  the  Treasury.  Mr. 
Cleveland  and  every  free  trader  in  the  United  States  knew  that  the 
tariff  could  be  revised  in  such  a  way  as  to  afford  ample  protection  to  every 
industry  and  at  the  same  time  reduce  the  revenues  which  were  being 
derived  from  customs  duties.  The  surplus  could  be  gotten  rid  of  without 
in  the  slightest  degree  assailing  a  protective  tariff.  The  cry  which  was 
raised  by  Mr.  Cleveland  against  the  surplus  in  the  Treasury  was  repeated 
throughout  the  Democratic  press  and  urged  for  years,  as  one  of  their  objec- 
tions against  the  policy  of  protection.  It  was  under  the  cover  of  this 
sham  assault  that  manj^  free  traders  were  able  to  carry  on  a  guerilla 
warfare  until  the  McKinley  bill  reduced  revenues  and  relieved  the  govern- 
ment of  its  surplus  to  the  extent  of  $41,000,000,  while  giving  increased 
protection  to  the  industries  of  the  country.  The  second  paragraph 
quoted  from  Mr.  Cleveland's  message,  however,  contains  the  real  objec- 
'  tion  relied  on.  This  announced  the  cardinal  principle  of  Cobdenism.  It 
embodies  the  contention  that,  although  it  would  result  in  the  destruction 
of  native  industries,  consumers  should  not  be  compelled,  through  a  tariff 
policy,  to  contribute  to  the  high  wages  paid  to  American  labor,  which 
increased  the  cost  of  production  over  goods  made  by  the  low  paid  labor  of 
Europe.  This  is  not  the  only  expression  we  have  from  Mr.  Cleveland  in  favor 


I 


TAL'IFF  QUESTIOX  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


British 
77«w  o/the 
effects  of 
reduction 
ofdutics 


of  "cheapness."  In  his  speech  at  Cokimbus,  Ohio,  November  13,  1S90, 
he  said  :  ' '  We  are  not  ashamed  to  confess  ourseh-es  in  full  sj-mpathy  with 
the  demand  for  cheaper  coats,  and  we  are  not  disturbed  b}-  the  hint  that 
this  seems  necessarilj-  to  involve  a  cheaper  man  or  woman  under  the 
coat." 

Mr.  Cleveland's  message  was  at  once  recognized  b}'  British  free 
traders  as  a  response  to  the  efforts  of  the  Cobden  Club  in  the  United 
States,  and  the  inauguration  of  a  policy  which  would  open  our  markets  to 
the  admission  of  their  goods.  The  fundamental  principles  involved 
showed  that  Mr.  Cleveland  had    been  a  close  student  of  their  literature. 

The  Glasgow  Herald,  in  commenting  on  this  message,  said:  "  Take- 
for  example  his  argument  against  the  wool  tariff,  that  the  farming 
class  lose  vastly  more  by  the  increased  prices  of  clothes  than  the}-  gain 
from  the  enhanced  price  of  wool.  This  reads  like  an  extract  from  an  old 
speech  of  Mr.  Bright's." 

The  I^ondon  Saturday  Review  said  of  the  message:  ' '  In  America  the 
President's  policy  means  free  trade.  The  President  and  the  Democratic 
leaders  have  finally  decided  that  they  have  nothing  to  gain  by  keeping 
measure  any  longer  with  the  protectionists.  They  have,  from  whatever 
motive,  resolved  to  adopt  a  free  trade  policy." 

The  Scotchman,  in  speaking  of  the  effect  which  Mr.  Cleveland's  pro- 
posal would  have  on  British  exports,  said: 

It  may  be  admitted  that  large  reductions  in  the  duties  on  imported  manufactured 
goods  would  produce  great  distress  in  many  parts  of  the  country  [meaning  the 
United  States]  .  .  .  The  free  importation  of  iron,  coal  ailci  wool  tcviild  be  a 
great  boon  to  British  producers.  .  .  .  If  it  were  accompanied  with  reductions  in 
the  tariff  upon  cotton,  woolen  and  other  manufactures,  the  artisans  of  this  country 
would  derive  a  inarked  benefit  from  it. 

The  lyOndon  Post  said:    "  We  shall  be  much  mistaken  if  the  effect  of 
this  state  communication  will  not  be  to  strengthen  considerably  the  en-. 
of  free  traders  in  all  parts  of  the  world.     It  -will  be  regarded  as  a  step 
the  right  direction  by  all  believers  in  the  soundness  of  free  trade  principles. ' 

The  London  Times  said:  "If  President  Cleveland's  tariff  reforms 
are  carried,  English  goods  and  iron  and  steel  largely  will  go  to  the 
States  in  greatly  increased  proportions. ' ' 

The  London  Echo,  for  January  23,  18SS,  in  speaking  of  the  defeat 
of  Mr.  Randall's  faction  (in  the  Democratic  caucus)  said:  "  l^iis  is  good 
news  for  England  for  it  means  an  increased  zcool,  iron  and  steel  trade. 

Similar  extracts  might  be  quoted  from  many  other  British  papers  to 
prove  that  Mr.  Cleveland's  utterances  were  those  of  a  free  trader,  and 
that  if  the  principles  enunciated  were  carried  out  it  would  result  in  a 
benefit  to  British  manufacturers  and  an  injury  to  those  in  the  United  States. 
One  more  quotation  .should  be  given  to  show  the  effect  which  English- 
men believed  a  reduction  of  duties  by  the  United  States  would  have  on 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


British  trade.  In  a  tract  issued  by  the  Cobdeii  Club  for  circulation  among 
the  workingmen  of  Great  Britain  to  combat  the  rising  sentiment  in  favor 
of  protection,  Mr.  George  W.  Medley,  one  of  the  secretaries  of  the  club, 
said  that  the  result  in  England  which  would  follow  the  adoption  of  uni- 
versal free  trade  would  be:  ' 

1.  A  sudden  and  vast  demand  for  labor  at  home. 

2.  A  sudden  and  great  increase  in  wages. 

3.  A  rapid  increase  in  tlie  number  of  our  factories,  workshops,  mills,  furnaces,  etc. 

4.  A  rampant  speculation  in  everything  connected  with  trade  and  manufactures. 

5.  A  general  rise  in  prices  distressful  to  those  with  fixed  incomes. 

6.  A  rush  of  population  from  home  and  abroad  to  our  manufacturing  centres. 

7.  A  stimulus  given  to  marriage  and  population. 
S.  A  demoralization  of  our  laboring  classes. 

9.  Strikes  for  an  increase  of  wages,  etc. 

The  pamphlet  containing  these  predictions  was  put  out  in  188 1. 
Believing  that  such  results  would  follow  the  opening  of  foreign  markets 
to  the  free  admission  of  British  goods,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
members  of  the  Cobden  Club  should  endeavor  to  procure  the  adoption 
of  universal  free  trade;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  most  astonishing 
that  Mr.  Cleveland  or  any  other  American  citizen  should  aid  in  forwarding 
such  a  policy. 

The.  message  of  President  Cleveland  summoned  to  action  every  free 
trader  in  the  country.  After  this  bold  attack  on  the  policy  of  protection 
by  the  chief  executive,  the  Democratic  press  of  the  country  began  its 
assault  with  renewed  vigor,  and  Democratic  Congressmen  became  more 
outspoken  in  their  expressions  in  favor  of  free  trade.  The  following  state- 
ments of  leading  members  of  the  Democratic  party  will  serve  to  show  the 
radical  position  which  their  party  was  taking  on  the  question.  Hon.  C.  R. 
Breckinridge,  of  Arkansas,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  17,  1888, 
said:  "  Of  course,  any  reduction  of  excessive  rates  of  tariff  taxation  is  in 
the  direction  of  free  trade.  I  do  not  seek  to  conceal  my  own  belief  in  the 
wisdom  of  the  greatest  possible  freedom  of  trade  from  all  hindrances 
and  restrictions. ' ' 

Hon.  John  H.  O'Neill,  of  Indiana,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
May  14,  188S,  said:  "As  a  free  trader — and  I  claim  to  be  one — I  protest 
against  making  the  tariff  so  high  as  to  destroy  competition  from  abroad." 

Hon.  R.  P.  Bland,  of  Missouri,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
July  19,  1888.  said:  "  I  am  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  voting  for  a  tariff 
on  lead,  or  a  tariff  on  ilax,  or  a  tariff  on  anything,  but  I  am  here  to  get 
the  tariff  off  everything  I  can.  I  am  in  a  combine  for  the  purpose  of 
reducing  taxes,  and  I  will  vote  for  a  bill  with  free  lead  or  free  anything 
else  in  it  to  accomplish  that  purpose. ' ' 

'  Fair-Trade  Journal,  Vol.  II..  page  35. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Hon.  S.  S.  Cox,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  i8,  iSSS,  said: 

There  was  no  warrant  in  England,  there  is  no  warrant  here  either  by  natural  laws, 
or  state  laws  or  constitutional  requirements,  to  restrict  such  freedom  of  exchange 
for  the  personal  or  class  interests  of  anyone,  any  more  than  there  is  a  warrant  for  a 
state  religion  or  the  abridgment  of  speech,  press  and  suffrage.  Freedom  not  only  to 
work  as  we  please,  but  to  dispose  of  the  product  of  our  work  as  we  please;  freedom 
to  spend  our  money  where  we  can  get  the  most  for  it,  and  freedom  to  make  that 
without  the  ignominy  of  enslaving  statutes. 


Hon.  Silas  Hare,  of  Texas,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  12, 
1888,  said:  "I  beHeve  that  a  tariff  for  protection  is  the  foundation  and 
principal  cause  of  all  the  complaints  and  unrest  that  has  either  threatened 
or  actually  disturbed  the  public  peace  and  quiet  for  years.  If  we  did  not 
require  money  to  defray  the  expenses  of  government,  I  would  be  an 
absolute  and  uncompromising  free  trader. 

Hon.  Peter  T.  Glass,  of  Iowa,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  April 
26,  1888,  said:  "  I  am  in  favor  of  putting  all  the  raw  materials  of  manu- 
facture on  the  free  list,  including  salt,  coal,  iron  ore,  copper,  timber  and 
lumber,  together  with  every  article  now  on  the  free  list." 

Hon.  Edward  Lane,  of  Illinois,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
May  12,  1 888,  said; 

Protection  has  its  origin  in  the  selfishness  of  our  natures  and  not  in  the  general 
good.  We  have  free  speech,  free  press,  free  soil,  free  thought,  free  religion,  and  our 
trade  should  be  as  free  as  possible.  Freedom  is  a  natural  right.  Free  trade  is  the 
natural  right  of  commerce.  Protection  is  forever  a  cheat  and  a  delusion.  Protection 
is  not  right.  It  should  be  an  inherent  right  in  every  American  citizen  to  sell  his 
labor  and  wares  where  he  can  get  the  best  price  and  to  buy  where  he  can  buy  the 
cheapest.  The  protective  system  is  nn-American,  and  is  a  perversion  of  the  laws 
of  nature,  of  God  and  man. 

The  foregoing  quotations  are  extracts  from  speeches  delivered  in 
defence  of  the  Mills  bill.  The  following  expressions  of  leading  Democrats 
are  cited  as  further  evidence  upon  the  question : 

Hon.  Roger  Q.  Mills; 

IfGrover  Cleveland  is  re-elected  President  of  the  United  States— as  he  will  be; 
if  another  Democratic  House  of  Representatives  is  cho.sen,  and  if  we  can  get  our 
Republican  friends  out  of  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  and  get  Democrats  in  place  of 
them,  then  we  will  pass  a  tariff  bill  that  puts  raw  material  on  the  free  list,  and  then 
we  will  put  our  own  intelligence  and  skillful  and  productive  labor  of  this  country  upon 
a  plane  of  equality  with  the  laborers  of  all  other  countries. 

I  desire  free  trade,  and  I  will  not  help  to  perfect  any  law  that  stands  in  the  way 
of  free  trade. 

Speaker  Carlisle:   "All  trade  should  be  as  free  as  pos.sible." 
Secretary  Fairchild;   "Add  to  the  free  list  as  many  articles  as  possible. 
Reduce  duties  upon  every  dutiable  article  to  the  lowest  possible  point. 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


Senator  Vest:  "We  are  eiiteriug  upon  a  most  fearful  Presidential 
contest,  the  most  important  since  that  of  i860.  Mr.  Cleveland,  b_v  his 
message,  for  which  I  sincerely  honor  him,  has  challenged  the  protected 
industries  of  the  country  to  a  fight  of  extermination." 

Hon.  Henry  Watterson:  ' '  The  Democratic  party  isa  free  trade  pai-tj-, 
or  it  is  nothing.  The  Democratic  party  will  make  a  free  trade  fight  in 
1884.  If  it  loses,  it  will  make  another  in  188S.  The  conflict  between  free 
trade  and  protection  is  irrepressible  and  must  be  fought  to  the  bitter  end. " 

Hon.  Isidor  Raynor: 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  appeal  to  the  Democracy  here  to  stand  true  to  their  colors. 
/  appeal  to  them  to  stand  up  to  the  traditions  of  our  party.  A  tariff  for  anything  else 
than  revenue  is  outside  the  traditions  and  principles  of  our  party,  and  at  war  with  its 
pledges  and  history.  //  is  foreign  to  our  platform.  We  have  given  to  the  people  the 
assurances  of  our  intentions  to  do  this.  Let  us  prove  our  faith  by  our  works.  Let  us 
engrave  upon  the  imperishable  tablets  of  the  law  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  we  have  pro- 
claimed. A  man  eannot,  at  this  time,  upon  this  floor,  be  a  Democrat  and  be  in  favor 
of  the  continuance  of  present  systems. 

Henry  George:  ' '  Mr.  Cleveland  has  burned  his  ships;  he  stands  before 
the  country  as  the  champion  of  free  trade  against  protection.  If  he  is 
re-elected,  protection  will  have  received  its  death  blow." 

Memphis  Appeal,  Democrat:  "But  coming  back  to  the  fact  of  free 
trade,  it  is  undeniable  that  this  is  the  ultimate  policy  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  the  Mills  bill  is  onlj'  a  step  toward  its  consummation,  and  for 
that  day,  we  pray,  '  God  send  it  soon.'  " 

Hon.  M.  D.  Harter:  "I  would  abolish  every  custom  house  in  the 
land.  I  would  vote  for  the  establishment  of  an  institution  to  spread  the 
cancer  or  a  field  in  which  to  propagate  cholera,  or  a  school  in  which  to  teach 
vice  and  crime,  rather  than  vote  for  a  protective  tariff  of  any  kind. ' ' 

Senator  Coke,  of  Texas,  said:  "  If  there  is  any  one  thing  in  this 
world  the  average  Texan  would  go  any  number  of  miles  out  of  his  way  to 
kick,  kill  and  destroy,  it  is  a  protective  tariff." 

Statements  of  this  character  from  leading  Democrats,  from  the  men 
who  control  the  legislation  and  direct  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  part_\-, 
are  too  numerous  to  repeat.  The  literatftre  of  the  Reform  Club,  or  Free 
Trade  Deague  of  New  York  City,  has  been  filled  with  definite  argu- 
ments and  expressions  in  favor  of  the  British  system  of  economics.  It 
would  be  unnecessary  to  quote  so  many  of  these  expressions  were  it  not  for 
the  fact  that  under  the  name  of  ' '  Tariff  Reform, ' '  an  effort  has  been  made 
and  is  still  being  made,  to  convince  the  people  that  the  Democratic  party 
is  not  a  free  trade  organization  and  thqt  its  ultimate  end  is  not  the  destruc- 
tion of  every  vestige  of  protection  and  the  establishment  of  a  system  of 
free  competition. 

The  radical  expression  of  Mr.  Cleveland  in  his  message  of  1887  and 
of  the  free  trade  leaders  resulted  in  defeat  in  1888.      Benjamin  Harrison 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Republican 
power. 


InduUrial 
advance 
under  pro- 


was  elected  President,  the  Republican  party  was  returned  to  power,  and 
entered  upon  a  revision  of  the  tariff  in  harmony-  with  the  principles  of 
protection.  A  history  of  the  legislation  having  been  given  in  a  preceding 
chapter  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  it  here.  The  revenues  had  been 
reduced  in  such  a,  way  that  the  Democratic  party  could  no  longer  com- 
plain of  a  constantly  accumulating  surplus.  The  countrj^  had  become 
so  prosperous  and  industrial  activity  so  universal,  that  it  seemed  to 
Republicans  that  no  valid  reason  could  be  urged  why  the  Democratic 
party  should  be  again  returned  to  power.  The  satisfactory  results  follow- 
ing the  legislation  of  1 890  and  the  conditions  existing  while  the  campaign 
of  1892  was  going  on,  were  stated  by  President  Harrison  in  his  message 
to  Congress  in  December,  1892,  after  the  Republican  party  had  been 
defeated,  as  follows : 

The  new  industrial  plants  established  since  October  6,  1S90,  and  up  to  October  22, 
1892,  as  partially  reported  in  the  American  Economist  number  345,  and  the  extension 
of  existing  plants,  loS;  the  new  capital  invested  amounts  to  $40,449,050,  and  the 
number  of  additional  employees  to  37,285. 

The  Textile  World  for  July,  1S92,  states  that  during  the  first  six  months  of  the 
present  calendar  year  135  new  factories  were  built,  of  which  40  are  cotton  mills,  48 
knitting  m.ills,  26  woolen  mills,  15  silk  mills,  4  plush  mills,  and  2  linen  mills.  Of  the 
40  cotton  mills  21  have  been  built  in  the  Southern  States.  Mr.  A.  B.  Shepperson,  of 
the  New  York  Cotton  Exchange,  estimates  the  number  of  working  spindles  in  the 
United  States,  on  September  i,  1892,  at  15,200,000,  an  increase  of  660,000  over  the  year 
1S91.  The  consumption  of  cotton  by  American  mills  in  1891  was  2,396,000  bales, 
and  in  1892,  2,584,000  bales,  an  increase  of  i8S,ooo  bales.  From  the  year  1869  to 
1S92  inclusive,  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  consumption  of  cotton  in  Europe  of 
92  per  cent,  while  during  the  same  period  the  increased  consumption  in  the  United 
States  has  been  about  150  per  cent. 

The  report  of  Ira  Ayer,  special  agent  of  the  Treasury  Department,  shows  that  at 
the  date  of  September  30,  1892,  there  were  32  companies  manufacturing  tin  and  terne 
plate  in  the  United  States,  and  14  companies  building  new  works  for  such  manufacture. 
The  estimated  investment  in  buildings  and  plants  at  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year,  June 
30,  1S93,  if  existing  conditions  were  to  be  continued,  was  #5,000,000,  and  the  estimated 
rate  of  production  200,000,000  pounds  per  annum.  The  actual  production  for  the 
quarter  ending  September  30,  1892,  was  10,952,725  pounds. 

The  report  of  Labor  Commissioner  Peck,  of  New  York,  shows  that  during  the 
year  1S91,  in  about  6000  manufacturing  establishments  in  that  State  embraced  within 
the  special  inquiry  made  by  him,  and  representing  67  different  industries,  there  was  a 
net  increase  over  the  year  1890  of"  $31,315,130.68  in  the  value  of  the  product,  and  of 
$6,377,925.09  in  the  amount  of  wages  paid.  The  report  of  the  conmiissioner  of  labor 
for  the  State  of  Massachusetts  shows  that  3745  industries  in  that  State  paid  $129,- 
416,24s  in  wages  during  the  year  1891,  against  $126,030,303  in  1890,  an  increase  of 
Jf3,335.945.  and  that  there  was  an  increase  of  $9,932,490  in  the  amount  of  capital  and 
of  7346  in  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  same  period. 

During  the  last  six  months  of  the  year  1891  and  the  first  six  months  of  1892.  the 
total  production  of  pig  iron  was  9,710,819  tons,  as  against  9,202,703  tons  in  the  year 
1890,  which  was  the  largest  annual  production  ever  attained.  For  the  same  twelve 
months  of  1891-92  the  production  of  Kessemer  ingots  was  3.878.5S1  tons,  an  increase 
of  189,710  gross  tons  over  the  previously  unprecedented  yearly  production  of  3,688,871 


TRIUMril  OF  DE3I0CRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


gross  tons  in  1890.  The  production  of  Bessemer  steel  rails  for  the  first  six  months  of 
1892  was  772,436  gross  tons,  as  against  702,080  gross  tons  during  the  last  six  months 
of  the  year  iSgr. 

The  total  value  of  our  foreign  trade  (exports  and  imports  of  merchandise)  during 
the  last  fiscal  year  was  Ji, 857,680,610  an  increase  of  1128,283,604  over  the  previous 
fiscal  year.  The  average  annual  value  of  our  imports  and  exports  of  merchandise  for 
the  ten  fiscal  years  prior  to  1891  was  f  1,457,322,019.  It  will  be  observed  that  our 
foreign  trade  for  1892  exceeded  this  aunual  average  value  by  1400,358,591,  an  increase 
of  27.47  per  cent.  The  significance  and  value  of  this  increase  are  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  excess  in  the  trade  of  1892  over  1S91  was  whollj'  in  the  value  of  exports,  for 
there  was  a  decrease  in  the  value  of  imports  of  $17,513,754. 

The  value  of  our  exports  during  the  fiscal  year  1892  reached  the  highest  figure  in 
the  history  of  the  government,  amounting  to  f  1,030,278, 148,  exceeding  by  $145,- 
797,338  the  exports  of  1891  and  exceeding  the  value  of  the  imports  by  $202,875,686. 
A  comparison  of  the  value  of  our  exports  for  1892  with  the  annual  average  for  the  ten 
years  prior  to  1891  shows  an  excess  of  $265,142,651  or  of  34.65  percent.  The  value  of 
our  imports  of  merchandise  for  1892,  which  was  $829,402,462,  also  exceeded  the  annual 
average  value  of  the  ten  years  prior  to  1891  by  $135,215,940.  During  the  fiscal  j-ear 
1892  the  value  of  imports  free  of  duty  amounted  to  $457,999,658,  the  largest  aggregate 
in  the  historj'  of  our  commerce.  The  value  of  imports  of  merchandise  entered  free  of 
duty  in  1892  was  55.35  per  cent,  of  the  total  value  of  imports,  as  compared  with  43.35 
per  cent  in  1891  and  33.66  per  cent  in  1890. 

Another  indication  of  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  number  of  depositors  iu  savings  banks  increased  from  693,870  in  i860  to 
4,258,893  in  1S90,  an  increase  of  513  per  cent,  and  the  amount  of  deposits  from 
I  [49,277, 504  in  1S60  to  $1,524,844,506  in  1S90,  an  increase  of  921  percent.  In  1891  the 
amount  of  deposits  in  savings  banks  was  $1,623,079,749.  It  is  estimated  that  90  per 
cent  of  these  deposits  represent  the  savings  of  wage-earners.  The  bank  clearances 
for  nine  months  ending  September  30,  1S91,  amounted  to  $41,049,390,808.  For  the 
same  months  in  1892  they  amounted  to  $45,189,601,947,  an  excess forthe  nine  months 
of  $4,140,211,139. 

There  never  has  been  a  time  in  oui  history  when  work  was  so  abundant  or  when 
wages  were  so  high,  whether  measured  by  the  currency  in  which  they  are  paid  or  by 
their  own  power  to  supply  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life.  It  is  true  that  the 
market  prices  of  cotton  and  wheat  have  been  low.  It  is  one  of  the  unfavorable 
incidents  of  agriculture  that  the  farmer  cannot  produce  upon  orders.  He  must  sow 
and  reap  in  ignorance  of  the  aggregate  production  of  the  year,  and  is  peculiarly 
subject  to  the  depreciation  which  follows  over-production.  But,  while  the  fact  I  have 
stated  is  true  as  to  the  crops  mentioned,  the  general  average  of  prices  has  been  so 
much  as  to  give  to  agriculture  a  fair  participation  in  the  general  prosperity. 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  marvelous  prosperitj'  in  1892  that  the 
Republicans  renominated  Benjamin  Harrison,  and  adopted  a  platform 
endorsing  the  recent  legislation  and  the  policj'  of  protection. 

Mr.  Cleveland  was  again  brought  forward  by  the  free  trade  element 
of  his  party  as  its  candidate  for  President.  It  was  apparent  some  time 
before  the  convention  assembled  that  his  nomination  was  assured.  When 
the  convention  met  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  the  adoption  of  a  plank  on  the 
tariff  question  became  next  in  importance  to  the  nomination  of  the  candi- 
date. This  was  so  fully  recognized  by  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  associates 
that  Senator  Gorman,   Senator  Gray  and  other  trusted  managers   had 


plat/or 
ofiS92. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


decided  in  advance  to  re-adopt  the  platform  upon  which  Mr.  Cleveland  was 
elected  in  1S84,  which  was  so  indefinite  upon  the  question  that  the 
manufacturers,  laborers  and  business  men  of  the  Eastern  and  Middle 
States  could  be  appealed  to  for  support  with  more  assurance  of  success.  In 
1 888  the  famous  free  trade  message  quoted  from  above  was  recognized  as  the 
platform  upon  which  he  was  running,  and  resulted  in  his  defeat.  Hence, 
Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  friends  had  decided  to  adopt  more  politic  expres- 
sions. When  the  convention  assembled,  the  committee  on  resolutions 
presented  a  platform  in  accordance  with  the  plan  stated;  but  the  conven- 
tion was  filled  with  delegates  from  the  West  and  South  who  had  become 
so  strongly  imbued  with  radical  free  trade  sentiments  that,  in  spite  of  the 
advice  of  the  more  astute  friends  of  Mr.  Cleveland,  the  following  plank 
was  presented  to  the  convention,  and  adopted  b}^  an  overwhelming 
majority: 

Section  3.  We  denounce  Republican  protection  as  a  fraud — a  robber\-  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  American  people  for  the  benefit  of  the  few.  We  declare  it  to  be  a 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Democratic  party  that  the  Federal  Government  has  no 
constitutional  power  to  impose  and  collect  tariff  duties,  except  for  the  purpose  of 
revenue  only,  and  we  demand  that  the  collection  of  such  taxes  shall  be  limited  to  the 
necessities  of  the  government  when  honestly  and  economically  administered. 

This  was  the  most  radical  declaration  in  favor  of  free  trade  that  had 
been  made  by  the  Democratic  party  since  the  Convention  of  1856.  It 
expressly  declared  that  when  a  duty  on  an  imported  article  is  made  high 
enough  to  afford  protection  to  home  labor,  and  thereljy  restricts  importa- 
tions and  revenues,  it  becomes  unconstitutional,  thus  reviving  the 
principles  of  Calhounism,  and  challenging  the  opinions  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  upon  this  que.stion.  They  further  declared  that  the 
McKinley  bill  was  "the  culminating  atrocity  of  class  legislation,"  and 
promised  its  repeal  if  placed  in  control  of  the  government. 

This  expression  was  .so  radical  that  it  alarmed  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his 
associates.  We  are  informed  b\-  Senator  Gorman,  in  his  speech  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  July  28,  1894,  that  the  situation  was  carefully  con- 
sidered, and  it  was  decided  that  the  campaign  should  be  conducted  upon 
more  conservative  lines.  Democratic  producers  from  various  parts  of  the 
countrj',  and  especially  public  men  whose  advice  would  be  relied  upon  by 
their  constituents,  sought  Mr.  Cleveland  for  advice  on  the  policy  which 
the  party  would  pursue  in  the  event  of  success.  A  conference  was  held 
and  a  more  politic  course  decided  upon.     Mr.  Gorman  says: 

After  a  great  deal  of  talk,  after  the  most  careful  consideration,  the  candidate  of 
our  party  told  them,  as  he  told  the  public  through  his  letter,  that  the  Democratic 
party  was  not  to  destroy  industries;  that  it  should  place  a  fair  duty  upon  dutiable 
articles — a  revenue  duty;  that  the  bill  which  had  met  approval  was  the  Mills  bill,  and 
on  the  line  of  the  Mills  bill  the  Democratic  party  would  act. 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


With  the  fear  of  defeat  staring  him  in  the  face,  Mr.  Cleveland 
adopted  the  policy  of  Polk  in  1844,  and  modified  his  expressions,  although 
he  had  not  changed  his  views.  He  attempted  to  make  a  platform  upon 
which  he  was  to  run,  which  would  be  more  likely  to  catch  votes  and  insure 
his  election.  In  his  speech,  made  at  Madison  Square  Garden,  New  York 
City,  July  20,  1892,  he  said:  "Ours  is  not  a  destructive  part}-.  We  are 
not  at  enmity  with  the  rights  of  an 5'  of  our  citizens.  All  are  our  countrj-- 
men.  We  are  not  recklessly  heedless  of  any  American  interests,  nor  ivill 
ive  aba7ido7i  our  regard  for  them.'' 

Again,  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  dated  Gray  Gables,  September  26, 
1892,  he  said: 

Tariff  reform  is  still  our  purpose.  We  wage  no  exterminating  ivar  against  any 
American  interests.  We  believe  a  readjustment  can  be  accomplished  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  we  profess  witlioiit  disaster  or  demolitioii .  We  contemplate  a  fair 
and  careful  distribution  of  necessary  tariff  burdens  rattier  tlian  tfie  precipitation  of 
free  trade.  We  will  rely  upon  the  intelligence  of  our  fellow-countrj-men  to  reject 
the  charge  that  a  party  comprising  a  majorit}-  of  our  people  is  planning  the  destniction 
or  injury  of  American  interests. 

Hence,  the  Democratic  party  went  before  the  people  with  two  plat- 
forms; in  the  South  and  West  it  was  well  understood  that  the  Chicago 
platform  represented  the  real  sentiment  of  the  partj%  and  that  it  embodied 
the  principle  which  would  guide  its  action  when  once  placed  in  control 
of  the  government;  while  through  the  Ea,stern  and  Middle  States  it  was 
claimed  that  Mr.  Cleveland  had  modified  his  views  upon  more  careful 
reflection,  since  his  bold  free  trade  .statements  in  1887,  and  the  labor, 
capital  and  interests  of  the  country'  would  be  safe  from  invasion  and  attack 
in  his  hands.  Through  this  system  of  double  dealing  and  the  prejudices 
which  were  arou.sed  by  the  misrepresentations  and  falsehoods  again,st  the 
McKinlej^  bill,  Mr.  Cleveland  was  elected,  and  with  him  a  large  majority 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  sufficient  Senators  to  control 
Congress.  Nevef  in  the  history  of  American  politics  was  such  a  .shameful 
campaign  as  this  one  waged  by  the  Democratic  party.  Our  workmen 
were  almost  too  busy  to  read  or  to  listen  to  arguments  presented  by  editors 
and  speakers,  but  the  free  trade  leaders  were  desperate,  another  year  or 
two  of  workings  of  the  tariff"  bill  vi^ould  have  blasted  every  hope  of  free 
trade  in  America  for  years  to  come  and  so  vindicated  the  wisdom  of  protec- 
tion that  it  would  have  been  placed  beyond  attack. 

The  plan  of  campaign  adopted  by  the  Democratic  party  was 
to  assail  and  misrepresent  the  McKinley  bill.  They  argued,  first,  that 
the  ^prosperity  we  were  enjoying  and  in  fact,  the  industrial  prosperity 
which  had  been  so  continuous  and  universal  for  the  past  thirt}-  j-ears, 
arose  from  the  superior  natural  advantages  of  our  soil  and  climate,  the 
energy  and  genius  of  our  people,  and  that  it  was  in  spite  of,  rather  than 
because  of,  protective  legislation.     Our  employers  of  labor  were  denounced 


of  free 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Effect , 
Ihcfim 


ofta.iff 
reduction 
on  business 


as  "  robber  barons,"  "monopolists,"  "capitalists,"  and  ever\-  effort  was 
made  to  prejudice  and  misguide  the  masses  of  the  people.  The  arguments 
of  European  anarchists  were  imported  and  hurled  at  our  thrifty  and  enter- 
prising men  of  means.  They  claimed  that  the  rich  were  growing  richer 
and  the  poor  poorer,  and  that  it  was  all  due  to  the  policy  of  protection. 
Again,  the  cry  of  high  prices  was  raised.  Tin  peddlers  were  sent  through 
Congressional  districts,  from  house  to  house,  demanding  higher  prices 
for  their  wares,  telling  the  people  that  the  increase  in  price  was  due  to  the 
McKinley  bill.  Every  failure  on  the  part  of  labor  organizations  to  obtain 
an  advance  in  wages  was  heralded  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other,  and  wages  were  claimed  to  have  been  reduced  in  consequence  of  the 
recent  tariff  legislation,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  a  Senate  committee 
had  made  an  investigation  of  the  question  of  wages  and  prices  which  was 
participated  in  by  free  trade  statisticians,  and  that  its  report,  concurred  in 
by  leading  Democratic  Senators,  among  whom  was  John  G.  Carlisle, 
showed  that  prices  had  declined  and  wages  had  advanced  after  the  passage 
of  the  Republican  measure. 

Our  producers  were  told  that  if  the  Democratic  pai-ty  was  trusted 
with  power  the  tariff  would  be  so  reformed  that  they  could  greatly  extend 
their  foreign  trade  and  capture  the  markets  of  the  world,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  after  the  Republican  legislation  our  foreign  trade  had 
been  larger  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the  country,  and  through 
reciprocity  treaties  a  definite  and  practical  means  had  been  provided  for 
opening  the  markets  of  South  America  to  our  wares  under  the  most 
favorable  conditions  possible.  In  the  West  and  South-  it  was  argued  that 
cheap  clothing  and  manufactured  goods  were  to  be  received  from  Europe 
in  exchange  for  farm  products,  while  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of  the 
East,  it  was  urged  that  by  putting  wool  on  the  free  list  so  that  our  maiui- 
facturers  could  buy  this  raw  material  in  South  America  and  Australia, 
they  would  be  able  to  enter  the  markets  of  the  world,  greatly  extend  the 
foreign  trade  and  increase  the  employment  of  labor.  In  one  part  of  pur 
country  it  was  claimed  that  we  were  to  sell  manufactured  goods  in  foreign 
countries,  while  in  another  part  exactly  the  opposite  was  maintained. 
It  would  require  too  much  space  to  attempt  to  point  out  the  frauds  perpe- 
trated on  the  American  people.  The  Democratic  party  became  desperate 
and  stopped  at  nothing  to  carry  the  election. 

The  manufacturers  of  the  country,  however,  were  not  deceived 
by  the  methods  resorted  to,  they  well  knew  what  was  sure  to  follow. 
Manufacturers  and  business  men  are  keen  and  sensitive,  and  x^Xxnw  they 
realized  that  a  free  trade  measure  of  some  kind  would  become  a  Jaw 
in  a  year  or  two  at  the  farthest,  that  the  spendable  income  of  millions  of 
laborers  and  consumers  would  be  reduced  or  cut  off  altogether,  that  the 
cheap  products  of  foreign  mills  would  come  to  our  shores,  and  that 
they  would  be  plunged  into  a  life-and-death  struggle  of  competition  with 


TEIV3IPH  OF  DE3I0CRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


the  manufacturers  of  Europe,  the}'  were  compelled  in  self-defence,  in 
response  to  and  in  keeping  with  the  laws  of  trade  and  commerce,  to  curtail 
their  productions  and  prepare  for  the  leveling  process  which  was  to  be 
forced  upon  them.  To  go  on  paj-ing  the  former  wage  rate  and  piling 
up  a  large  stock  of  goods  at  the  former  cost  of  production,  ultimatelj'  to  be 
offered  for  sale  in  competition  with  the  cheap  goods  made  by  the  poorly 
paid  labor  of  foreign  rivals,  would  bring  certain  ruin  and  bankruptcy. 
Merchants  also  well  understood  the  situation,  and  po.stponed  their  purchases 
to  buy  more  cheaply  of  importers.  It  would  be  unwise  for  them  to  be 
caught  with  large  stocks  of  goods,  made  in  American  factories  by 
American  labor,  when  the  day  of  lower  prices  should  arrive,  under 
ruinous  free  trade  competition.  The  result  of  the  election  was  a  surprise 
to  business  men.  During  the  prosperous  years  following  the  passage 
of  the  McKinley  bill,  they  had  made  large  purchases  and  done  an 
extensive  business  without  once  thinking  that  the  calamity  which  followed 
the  election  of  Mr.  Cleveland  was  so  near  at  hand.  Hence,  a  readjustment 
of  business  to  the  leveling  process  of  free  trade  practically  commenced  on 
No^-ember  9,  1892,  when  the  result  of  the  election  became  known.  All 
the  magnificent  results  of  the  legislation  of  1890  were  to  be  destroyed. 
The  reciprocity  treaties  were  to  be  revoked.  The  sugar  bounty  would 
give  way  to  a  tax  levied  on  every  family.  Our  tin  plate  industry  would 
be  crippled  if  not  destroyed.  The  sheep  on  our  farms  would  be  slaughtered. 
The  mills  of  Lowell  would  be  closed  that  the  factories  of  Bradford  might 
run  full  time.  The  duties  on  all  competing  manufactured  articles  were 
to  be  reduced  to  a  point  which  would  bring  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars' 
worth  of  goods  from  the  factories  of  Europe  to  displace  goods  which 
had  hitherto  been  made  by  our  own  labor.  The  only  effective  weapon 
of  defence  which  our  manufacturers  had  for  resisting  this  invasion,  would 
be  found  in  a  reduction  of  wages  and  profits.  The  statements  of  protec- 
tionists that  this  must  necessarily  occur,  although  it  had  been  disputed, 
was  now  openly  conceded  by  many  leading  free  traders,  as  is  shown  by 
the  following  quotation. 

On  the  seventeenth  day  of  November,  1892,  just  nine  days  after  the 
election  of  Mr.  Cleveland,  the  New  York  Commercial  Bulletin,  a  leading 
free  trade  journal,  after  showing  that  the  new  conditions  which  must  result 
frsm  the  introduction  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  tarifi"  policy,  would  for  a  time 
bring  about  falling  markets,  limited  business,  cautious  buying,  reduced 
stocks,  and  a  shrinkage  in  values,  said  : 

The  chief  pressure  of  these  transient  disarrangements  will  be  found  to  finally 
settle  upon  raw  materials  and  labor.  If  the  manufacturer  has  to  accept  a  lower  price 
for  his  product,  he  must  either  close  his  works  or  get  compensation  in  a  reduction  of 
the  costs  of  production,  and  that  economy  must  be  his  first  resort  for  self-protection. 
The  producer  of  raw  materials  can  have  no  choice  but  to  accept  his  share  of  conces- 
sion, at  once  if  he  must,  later  if  he  may.  Labor  may  be  expected  to  yield  its  quota  of 
concession,  grudgingly  and  tardily  and  possibly  not  without  more  or  less  disturbing 


tariff 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  alleged 
evils  of 
proteclion. 


resort  to  lock-outs  and  strikes.  Those  vj)w  have  taught  workingmen  that  a  reduction 
if  tariff  does  7wt  mean  a  relative  reduction  of  wages  have  adulterated  a  great  reform 
with  a  very  paradoxical  doctrine  ;  but  we  doubt  whether  the)-  have  succeeded  to  auv 
great  extent  in  misleading  their  pupils.  It  certainly  does  not  require  anything  beyond 
the  measure  of  intelligence  with  which  the  American  workman  is  commonly  credited 
to  comprehend  the  accepted  rule  that,  in  the  first  place,  if  products  are  to  be  sold  for 
less,  the  working  producer  must  get  less  pay  ;  and  that,  in  the  next  place,  if  workmen 
concede  in  wages  they  will  get  full  compensation  in  the  cheapening  of  the  products 
they  have  to  buy,  so  that  the  net  result  to  the  earner  is  the  same  under  low  wages  as 
under  higher.  But  while  we  have  no  doubt  that  the  mass  of  workmen  are  in  a  measure 
prepared  for  this  equal  change  in  wages  and  in  prices  when  the  new  tariff  comes  into 
operation,  yet  it  is  a  question  whether  they  will  readily  accept  any  reduction 
of  pay  until  the  new  tariff  goes  into  effect.  This  may  prove  to  be  one  of  the  most 
embarrassing  features  we  shall  have  to  encounter  in  approaching  the  new  commercial 
policy. 

The  triumph  of  the  Democratic  party  under  these  circumstances  was 
at  once  accepted  bj^  Mr.  Cleveland  and  the  tariff  reformers  as  a 
verdict  in  favor  of  free  trade.  The  principles  laid  down  in  the  Madison 
Square  Garden  speech  and  the  letter  of  acceptance,  were  now  ignored 
and  the  Chicago  platform  emerged  from  the  campaign  as  expressing 
Democratic  principles  and  the  wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  American 
people.  Mr.  Cleveland  in  his  inaugural  address  on  the  fourth  of  March, 
said: 

The  verdict  of  our  voters  which  condemned  the  injustice  of  maintaining  protection 
for  protection's  sake,  enjoins  upon  the  people's  servants  the  duty  of  exposing  and 
destroying  the  brood  of  kindred  evils  which  are  the  unwholeson;e  progeny  oi paternal- 
ism. The  lessons  of  paternalism  ought  to  be  unlearned  and  the  better  lesson  taught, 
that  while  the  people  should  patriotically  and  cheerfull)-  support  their  government,  its 
functions  do  not  include  the  support  of  the  people.  The  acceptance  of  this  principle 
leads  to  the  refusal  of  bounties  and  subsidies,  which  burden  the  labor  and  thrift  of  a 
portion  of  our  citizens  to  aid  ill-advised  or  languishing  indu.stries  in  which  they  have 
no  concern.  While  there  should  be  no  surrender  of  principle  our  task  must  be 
undertaken  wisely  and  without  viudictiveness.  Our  mission  is  not  punishment  but  the 
rectification  of  wrongs. 

The  meaning  of  the  phra.se  used  by  President  Cleveland  cannot  be  mis- 
understood. The  ' '  brood  of  kindred  evils  which  are  the  unwholesome 
progeny  of  paternalism,"  relates  definitely  to  protected  industries.  This 
was  but  a  reiteration  of  the  epithets  long  applied  by  free  traders  and  is  but 
another  name  for  protection.  The  expression  that  "  its  [the  go\-ernment's] 
functions  do  not  include  the  support  of  the  people"  merely  re-asserts 
the  principle  held  to  by  the  French  economists  and  forms  an  essential 
element  of  free  trade,  that  the  functions  of  governments  are  simply  to  pre 
serve  order,  enforce  contracts  and  leave  the  people  under  the  law  of  ' '  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  "  to  fight  out  the  "struggle  for  existence,"  the  weak 
to   succumb  to  the  strong.      It  involves,  the  subjection  of  our  labor  and 


TRIUilPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


it 

[ 


capital  to  the  unrestricted  competition  of  foreign  rivals,  to  be  supplanted 
and  destroyed,  or  reduced  to  the  level  of  the  poorly  paid  wage-earners  of 
Europe.  It  means  that  manufactured  articles  shall  be  made  where  they 
can  be  made  the  cheapest,  regardless  of  the  welfare  of  our  own  citizens. 
To  place  any  other  construction  upon  this  declaration  would  be  a  reflection 
upon  Mr.  Cleveland's  intelligence,  more  especially  so  since  he  has  now 
spent  years  of  study  and  reflection  upon  the  question.  The  language  used, 
although  couched  in  technical  and  skillful  free  trade  terms,  could  deceive 
no  one  familiar  with  free  trade  literature.  These  expressions  which  fore- 
shadowed the  future  policy  of  the  party,  tended  .still  further  to  alarm 
the  business  men  of  the  country  and  increase  the  calamities  which  had 
already  made  their  appearance.  It  was  a  notice  to  the  industrial  interests 
of  the  country  to  prepare  themselves  for  the  executioner's  axe  which  was 
ready  to  fall  on  their  necks. 

With  this  threatened  assault  upon  the  industries  of  the  country,  by 
men  not  only  desperately  bent  on  executing  their  purpose,  but  having 
the  means  by  which  to  carry  it  out,  it  is  idle  to  attribute  the 
business  crisis  which  immediately  followed  to  causes  other  than  the  tariff 
policy  of  the  Democratic  party.  Those  familiar  with  the  effect  which 
low  duties  had  had  on  our  industries  in  years  past  could  not  mistake  the 
inevitable  results  which  were  to  follow.  By  the  first  of  July,  1893, 
the  panic  had  set  in  with  all  its  intensity,  grew  more  severe  during 
tlie  next  winter  and  has  continued  until  the  present  time  (January  i, 
1896).  Capital  became  frightened,  investments  not  only  ceased,  but 
money  was  fast  withdrawn  from  productive  industries.  Millions  of  dollars 
of  our  domestic  securities  held  in  foreign  countries  were  returned  and 
thrown  on  our  market,  the  gold  resen-e  in  the  Treasury  was  constantly 
reduced,  and  the  sale  of  bonds  was  begun  for  its  maintenance.  We  were 
again  on  the  verge  of  the  disasters  of  1857.  During  the  winter  of  1893-4 
in  New  York  City  the  Herald  established  a  free  clothing  lund,  and 
the  World  a  free  bread  fund.  In  more  respects  than  one  did  1893  s"*^^ 
1894  resemble  the  last  free  trade  period  preceding.  This  time  we  had  no 
gold  discovery  or  foreign  war  or  foreign  famine  to  help  us  out,  and  the 
storm  of  free  trade  disaster  burst  in  all  its  fury. 

The  following  is  from  a  statement  of  R.  G.  Dun  &  Co.,  at  the  close 
of  the  year : 

Starting  with  the  largest  trade  ever  known,  mills  crowded  with  work  and  all 
business  .stimulated  by  high  hopes,  the  year  of  1893  has  proved,  in  sudden  shrinkage 
of  trade,  in  commercial  disasters  and  depression  of  industries,  the  worst  for  fifty  years. 
Whether  the  final  re.sults  of  the  panic  of  1S37  were  relatively  more  severe,  the  scanty 
records  of  that  time  do  not  cleariy  show.  The  year  closes  with  the  prices  of 
many  products  the  lowest  ever  known,  with  millions  of  workers  seeking  in  vain  for 
work,  and  with  charity  laboring  to  keep  back  suffering  and  starvation  in  all  our 
cities. 


Thepam 
nf,S9S-, 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


How  like  1857  was  1893  can  be  seen  from  the  following  extracts  from  the 
messages  of  President  Buchanan  and  President  Cleveland: 


From  President  Buchanan's  Annual 
Message  to  Congress,  1S57. 

With  unsurpassed  plenty  in  all  the 
productions  and  all  the  elements  of 
natural  wealth  our  manufacturers  have 
suspended ;  our  public  works  are  re- 
tarded ;  our  private  enterprises  of  differ- 
ent kinds  are  abandoned;  and  thousands 
of  useful  laborers  are  thrown  out  of  em- 
ployment and  reduced  to  want.  We  have 
possessed  all  the  elements  of  material 
wealth  in  rich  abundance,  and  yet,  not- 
withstanding all  these  advantages,  our 
country,  in  its  monetary  interest,  is  in  a 
deplorable  condition. 


From  President  Cleveland's  Annual 
Messag'e  to  Congress,  1S93. 

With  plenteous  crops,  with  abundant 
promise  of  remunerative  production  and 
manufacture,  with  unusual  invitation  to 
safe  investment,  and  with  satisfactory 
assurance  to  business  enterprise  suddenly 
finaucial  fear  and  distrust  have  sprang 
up  on  every  side.  Numerous  moneyed  in- 
stitutions have  suspended  .... 
Surviving  corporations  and  individuals 
are  content  to  keep  in  hand  the  money 
they  are  usually  anxious  to  loan  .... 
And  loss  and  failure  have  involved  every 
branch  of  business. 


As  President  Buchanan  feared,  a  loan  was  required  and  a  second  as 
well.     President  Cleveland,  too,  found  it  necessar>'  to  issue  bonds. 

Not  only  Mr.  Cleveland  but  the  Democratic  press  and  members  of 
Congress  proclaimed  the  verdict  of  the  people  as  a  condemnation  of  the 
policj^  of  protection  and  as  a  demand  for  free  trade  legislation.  There 
was,  however,  a  large  element  of  the  Democratic  part}-  that  would  not 
have  given  its  support  to  Mr.  Cleveland  had  his  canvass  been  made  in  the 
Eastern  and  Middle  States  on  the  Chicago  platform,  instead  of  on  his 
declaration  "we  will  not  destroy  any  industry."  In  speaking  of  this. 
Senator  Gorman  said,  in  the  speech  quoted  from: 

"  As  I  have  once  before  said  in  the  Senate,  but  for  that  declaration  I 
do  not  believe  Mr.  Cleveland  could  have  carried  the  country  and  been  elected 
President  of  the  United  States." 

Notwithstanding  this  fact  the  people  found  the  free  trade  element  of 
the  Democratic  party  in  power.  Those  Democratic  members  of  Con- 
gress who,  in  appealing  to  their  constituents  for  support,  had  claimed 
that  they  did  not  entertain  free  trade  views,  and  that  the  industries 
of  the  country  would  be  safe  in  the  hands  of  their  party,  found  them- 
selves unable  to  control  the  Democratic  caucus,  and  were  forced  either  to 
abide  by  its  decision  or  to  place  tliemselves  in  antagonism  to  the  adminis- 
tration, with  the  loss  of  patronage  to  their  friends  and  the  disfavor  which 
such  action  would  incur.  In  the  formation  of  the  Cabinet,  the  organ- 
ization of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  appointment  of  the  Way.^ 
and  Means  Committee,  the  free  trade  element  of  the  party  was  placed  in 
control.  John  G.  Carlisle,  of  Kentucky,  a  member  of  the  Cobden  Clitb, 
was  made  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Mr.  Crisp,  of  Georgia,  was  elected 
Speaker   and   appointed  the   following  Ways  and   Means  Conunittee,  of 


TRIVMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AXD  FREE  TRADE. 


which  Mr.  Wilson,  of  West  Virginia,  an  ardent  free  trader,  was  made 
chairman.  The  members  of  the  committee  were,  Democrats:  Wilson, 
West  \'irgiuia  ;  McMillin,  Tennessee;  Turner,  Georgia  ;  Montgomery, 
Kentucky;  Whiting,  Michigan:  Cockran,  New  York;  Stevens,  Massa- 
chusetts ;  Brj-an,  Nebraska  :  Breckinridge,  Kentucky  ;  Bynum,  In- 
diana; Tarsney,  Missouri.  Republicans:  Reed,  Maine;  Burrows,  Michi- 
gan; Payne,  New  York:  Dalzell,  Pennsylvania;  Hopkins,  Illinois;  Gear, 
Iowa. 

The  Democratic  members  of  this  committee  entered  upon  the  work 
of  framing  a  tariff  bill  with  a  reckless  disregard  for  the  industrial  interests 
of  the  countn,-.  Petitions  and  memorials  from  laboring  men.  manu- 
facturers and  business  men  were  ignored,  while  importers  and  repre- 
sentatives of  foreign  manufacttu-ers  were  consulted  in  framing  tariff 
schedules  affecting  the  interests  of  American  labor  and  capital.  The 
policy  of  the  legislators  of  France,  Gennanj-  and  Great  Britain,  in  fact  of 
all  industrial  countries,  has  been  to  seek  advice  from  experienced  manu- 
facturers upon  such  questions,  but  the  free  trade  Congressmen  of  the 
United  States  have  adopted  a  policj-  quite  the  reverse.  A  bill,  prac- 
tically framed  in  the  secret  meetings  of  the  Democratic  members,  was 
presented  to  Congress  by  the  chairman,  Mr.  Wilson,  and  after  a  short 
debate  was  passed.  All  but  seventeen  Democratic  members  recorded 
their  votes  in  its  favor. 

The  measure,  which  became  known  as  the  Wilson  bill,  placed  iron 
ore,  bituminous  coal,  wool,  cotton  ties,  binding  twine,  nearly  all  farm 
products  and  many  other  articles  on  the  free  list,  and  made  most  radical 
and  sweeping  reductions  in  import  duties  on  the  whole  line  of  competing 
commodities.  The  bounty  on  sugar  was  repealed,  as  was  the  reciprocity- 
paragraph  of  the  McKinley  bill.  This  was  a  more  radical  free  trade 
measure  than  either  the  act  of  1846  or  that  of  1857.  In  those  acts  protec- 
tion was  extended  to  the  coal  and  iron  miners,  and  a  dut^-  was  placed  on 
wool.  Considering  the  fact  that  to-day  there  is  a  greater  difference  between 
the  wages  paid  in  the  United  States  and  competing  foreign  countries  than 
existed  prior  to  i860:  that  since  Continental  Europe  has  developed  a  vast 
manufacturing  system,  competition  has  become  sharper,  and  a  larger 
surplus  of  products  made  in  those  countries  is  read}'  to  be  placed  on  our 
markets;  the  measure  embodied  more  radical  firee  trade  principles  than 
any  other  act  passed  by  the  Democratic  part}'  since  1833.  Our  industrial 
system  had  become  so  vast  that  this  bill,  if  it  had  become  a  law,  would 
have  been  most  destructive  in  its  results. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  its  main  purpose  was  to  increase 
the  imports  of  competing  manufactures  from  Europe.  It*  was  expected 
and  intended  by  its  advocates,  that  many  of  our  industries  would 
be  supplanted.  Those  which  would  be  unable  to  live  when  protection 
was  withdrawn  were  branded  as   "pauper  industries."     The  Hon.  John 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


D'^mocratic 


DeWitt  Warner,  a  leading  free  trade  member  of  the  Hotise,  in 
its  support  Januarj'  lo,  1894,  said; 


speech  iu 


If,  however,  in  some  cases  it  shall  turn  out  to  be  as  those  who  are  engaged  in 
them  [our  industries]  fear,  if  whenever  the  support  of  taxation  upon  others  is  with- 
drawn from  them  the}'  find  that  they  can  not  make  a  living  here,  then  all  that  work- 
ingmen  of  my  district  have  to  say  is  this :  "  If  you  are  gomg  away,  go  and  God  speed 
to  you;  for  the  quicker  you  go  the  better  we  will  be  off;  if  you  are  going  to  die  here, 
die,  and  we  will  plant  flowers  over  your  grave;  for  your  room  is  worth  more  than  your 
company." 

This  was  greeted  with  loud  applause  on  the  Democratic  side  of  the 
House.  Whether  Mr.  Warner  had  a  correct  understanding  of  the  senti- 
ments of  the  workiugmen  of  his  district,  is  immaterial,  the  important  fact 
is  that  the  measure  dealt  a  death-blow  to  many  of  our  industries  and  the 
Democratic  members  were  expressing  their  desire  to  put  flowers  on  their 
graves.  It  may  not  be  out  of  place,  however,  to  state  that  in  the  election 
which  followed  the  passage  of  this  bill  the  workingmen  were  quite  as 
anxious  to  put  flowers  on  the  grave  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  marked 
Mr.  Wilson  and  many  of  his  followers,  as  they  had  marked  our  indu.stries, 
for  destruction.  When  this  measure  reached  the  Senate,  it  met  the  oppo- 
sition of  four  Democratic  Senators.  Senator  Hill,  of  New  York,  opposed 
it  on  the  ground  that  it  contained  a  provision  levying  a  tax  on  incomes; 
Senator  Brice,  of  Ohio,  Smith,  of  New  Jersey,  and  Gorman,  of  Maryland, 
because  it  was  in  violation  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  promise  and  the  a.ssur- 
ance  which  had  been  given  by  the  managers  of  the  'Campaign  that  no 
American  industry  would  be  destroyed.  The  opposition  of  these  Sena- 
tors called  down  upon  their  heads  the  most  violent  denunciations  of  the 
Democratic  press  of  the  country.  They  were  denounced  as  traitors  to 
their  party,  and  most  scandalously  vilified  for  attempting  to  stay  the  hand 
of  free  trade. 

The  Democratic  party  had  forty-four  Senators.  The  votes  of  forty- 
three  were  necessary  to  the  passage  of  any  tariff  bill.  The  vote  of  Senator 
Hill  could  not  be  relied  upon  for  the  passage  of  any  measure  which  imposed 
an  income  tax.  Hence,  a  compromise  was  agreed  upon  which  placed  a 
moderate  duty  on  coal,  iron  ore,  and  by  over  600  amendments  the  duties 
were  increased  on  competing  imports;  upon  some,  quite  materially,  and 
others,  very  slightly.  The  bill  finally  passed  the  Senate  after  a  long  debate 
in  which  the  Republican  Senators  made  the  most  able  and  gallant  fight  in 
defence  of  American  industries  that  has  ever  been  made  in  the  halls  of 
Congress  since  the  government  was  organized.  The  lack  of  rules  in  the 
Senate  and  the  long  delay  on  the  part  of  the. Democratic  Senators  to  reach 
a  compromise,  gave  to  the  Republicans  an  opportunity  in  debate  to  dis- 
cuss every  phase  of  the  bill,  such  as  was  not  accorded  to  the  Republican 
members  in  the  House,  who  were  so  far  in  a  minority  that  they  were 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


unable  to  obstruct  and  hold  the  bill  until  its  iniquitous  features  could  be 
fully  exposed. 

This  measure,  which  became  kuovvn  as  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill, 
passed  the  Senate  and  was  returned  to  the  House  for  concurrence  in  the 
amendments.  After  some  delay  and  the  expression  of  the  most  violent 
indignation  by  the  free  traders  at  the  course  of  the  few  Senators  who  had 
given  their  ultimatum  in  the  amendments,  it  was  reluctantly  accepted  and 
passed  the  House.  The  Gorman- Wilson  bill  was  a  measure  forced  on  the 
Democratic  part>'  by  three  Senators  representing  States  whose  interests 
could  not  be  ignored  with  safetj'  to  themselves  and  their  party.  The  Wilson 
bill,  as  framed  and  passed  by  the  House,  was  the  administration  measure 
and  represented  the  sentiments  of  a  large  majority  of  the  Democratic 
party  on  the  question.  It  discloses  the  character  of  the  legislation  which 
Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  associates  would  have  forced  upon  the  people,  had 
the  will  and  sentiment  of  their  party  prevailed.  In  considering  the  future 
attitude  of  the  Democratic  party  upon  this  question,  the  Wilson  bill  must 
be  taken  as  representing  its  policy  and  principles;  while  in  considering 
the  effect  of  low  duties  and  an  approach  toward  free  trade  upon  the  indus- 
tries of  the  country,  the  reduction  of  duties  under  the  Gorman- Wilson 
bill  must  be  taken  as  a  standard. 

On  July  2,  1S94,  when  the  bill  was  suspended  in  the  Senate  and  its 
fate  uncertain,  Mr.  Cleveland  wrote  a  letter  to  Chairman  Wilson,  in  which 
he  said: 

There  is  no  excuse  for  mistaking  or  misapprehending  the  feeling  and  temper  of 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  Democracy.  They  are  downcast  under  the  assertioii  that 
their  party  fails  in  ability  to  manage  the  government,  and  the\-  are  apprehensive  that 
efforts  to  bring  about  tariff  reform  may  fail;  but  they  are  much  more  downcast  and 
apprehensive  in  their  fear  that  Democratic  principles  may  be  surrendered. 

Every  true  Democrat  and  every  sincere  tariff  reformer  knows  that  this  bill,  in  its 
present  form  and  as  it  will  be  submitted  to  the  conference,  falls  far  short  of  the  con- 
summation for  which  we  have  long  labored,  for  which  we  have  suffered  defeat  without 
discouragement;  which,  in  its  anticipation,  gave  us  a  rallying  cry  in  our  day  of 
triumph,  and  which,  in  its  promise  of  accomplishment,  is  so  interwoven  with 
Democratic  pledges  and  Democratic  success,  that  our  abandonment  of  the  cause  or 
principles  upon  which  it  rests  means  party  perfidy  and  party  dishonor. 

On  August  27,  1894,  in  a  letter  written  to  Hon.  T.  C.  Catchings,  of 
Mississippi,  he  said: 

But  there  are  provisions  in  this  tariff  bill  which  are  not  in  the  line  with  honest 
tariff  reform,  and  it  contains  inconsistencies  and  crudities  which  ought  not  to  appear 
in  tariff  laws  or  laws  of  any  kind.  Besides,  there  were,  as  you  and  I  well  know,  inci- 
dents accompanying  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  Congress  which  made  every  sincere 
tariff  reformer  unhappy,  while  influences  surrounded  it  in  its  later  stages,  and  inter- 
fered with  its  final  construction,  which  ought  not  to  be  recognized  or  tolerated  in 
Democratic  tariff  reform  counsels. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


And  yet,  notwithstanding  all  its  vicissitudes  and  all  the  bad  treatment  it  received 
at  the  hands  of  pretended  friends,  it  presents  a  vast  improvement  to  existing  condi- 
tions. It  will  certainly  lighten  many  tariff  burdens  that  now  rest  heavily  upon  the 
people.  It  is  not  only  a  barrier  against  the  return  of  mad  protection,  but  it  furnishes 
a  vantage  ground  from  which  must  be  waged  further  aggressive  operations  against 
protected  monopoly  and  governmental  favoritism. 

I  take  my  place  with  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Democratic  party  who  believe  iu 
tariff  reform,  and  who  know  what  it  is;  who  refuse  to  accept  the  results  embodied  in 
this  bill  at  the  close  of  the  war;  who  are  not  blinded  to  the  fact  that  the  livery  of 
Democratic  tariff  reform  has  been  stolen  and  worn  in  the  service  of  Republican 
protection,  and  who  have  marked  the  places  where  the  deadly  blight  of  treason  has 
blasted  the  counsels  of  the  brave  in  their  hour  of  might. 

Mr.  Wilson  said  ( Congre.ssioiial  Record,  August  14,  1894):  "So  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  and  I  believe  so  far  as  the  people  with  whom  I  am 
associated  in  this  great  work  here  are  concerned,  we  do  not  intend  to  give 
up  this  fight." 

Senator  Mills  said  (Congres.sional  Record  of  August  16,  1894): 

We  are  going  backward  instead  of  forward.  We  do  not  at  all  accept  this  as  a 
final  settlement  of  the  question  of  tariff  reform.  We  have  carried  the  outposts  that 
defended  the  citadel  of  the  enemy,  and  we  intend  to  push  the  contest  until  we  carry 
the  gates  of  the  city  and  sweep  the  streets  of  the  enemy  and  take  everything  from 
him — remove  all  bamers  and  permit  free  trade  all  over  the  world. 

The  Hon.  Henry  Watterson,  in  the  Louisville  Courier  Journal,  said: 

The  Democratic  party  is  irrevocably  pledged  to  the  obliteration  of  protectionism 
in  all  its  forms  from  our  revenue  system,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  it  will  not  have 
ceased  its  consideration  of  the  tariff  nor  close  this  interesting  chapter  in  our  domestic 
economy  until  the  last  obstruction  to  free  commerce  with  the  nations  of  the  world  has 
been  removed.  The  conflict  between  free  trade  and  protection  is  an  irrepressible 
conflict. 

Space  will  not  permit  a  presentation  of  all  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 
Did  we  not  have  the  Wilson  bill  with  which  to  contrast  the  Senate 
bill  the  country  would  still  be  astonished  at  the  length  to  which  the 
Democratic  party  had  gone  in  its  mad  career  of  destruction.  The 
advantage  secured  to  our  foreign  trade  through  the  reciprocity  treaties 
has  been  destroyed  by  repealing  the  provision  which  permits  the  govern- 
ment to  enter  into  reciprocal  arrangements  for  the  admission  of  our 
produce  into  foreign  countries  upon  favorable  terms.  From  this  it  would 
seem  that,  while  it  is  in  harmony  with  tariflF  reform  to  give  foreign  pro- 
ducers advantages  in  our  markets,  it  is  a  violation  of  its  principles  to 
.secure  advantages  to  our  producers  in  their  markets.  The  weapon  by 
which  we  forced  Germany  and  France  to  withdraw  their  restriction  against 
our  pork  has  been  laid  aside. 

Wool  was  placed  on  the  free  list,  while  the  duties  on  woolen  goods 
were  reduced  to  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  less  than  50  per  cent,  and  the  duties 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


on  the  whole  schedule  of  competing  commodities  were  reduced  so  low  that 
a  reduction  in  wages  was  made  necessar>-  in  order  to  hold  our  home 
market,  and  even  then  we  were  being  supplied  with  millions  of  dollars' 
worth  of  manufactured  goods  which  had  formerly  been  made  in  our  own 
factories.  Although  it  is  diiEcult  to  compare  schedules  by  percentages  on 
account  of  fluctuation  in  prices,  the  following  reductions  in  duties  were 
reported  by  the  government  to  have  been  made: 

Transferred  from  dutiable  to  free  list, 92  Articles 

Reduced  over  75  per  cent • 7        " 

Reduced  from  50  to  75  per  cent, ii 2        " 

Reduced  from  25  to  50  per  cent, 368         " 

Reduced  25  per  cent  or  less, 250        " 

Increased, 53        " 

Among  those  articles  upon  which  duties  were  increased  were  sugar, 
shelled  peanuts,  seal  oil,  castile  soap,  molasses,  dates,  pineapples,  olives, 
grapes,  Zante  t;urrants,  orange  and  lemon  peel,  cocoanuts,  desiccated  cocoa- 
nut,  mineral  waters,  cork  bark,  acetic  acid,  collodion,  alabaster,  gimps, 
galloons,  etc.,  bronze  powder,  bark  for  dj-eing  or  tanning,  and  umbrella 
and  parasol  ribs. 

This  measure  has  now  been  in  force  a  year  and  a  half,  and  its 
results  have  become  so  well  known  that  we  are  better  able  to  judge  of  the 
conipetenc}'  of  the  Democratic  party  to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  nation 
and  to  measure  more  accurately  the  effect  of  the  policy  of  low  duties  on 
the  business  interests  of  our  country.  That  the  bill  has  not  accomplished 
wliat  was  claimed  for  it  by  the  Democratic  party  is  now  apparent.  The 
predictions  of  the  free  traders  are  well  illustrated  by  the  following  extract 
from  the  speech  of  Senator  Roger  O.  Mills,  made  in  the  United  States 
Senate  in  favor  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  April  28,  1894: 

Mr.  President,  when  we  prevent  things  from  coming  to  this  country  we  prevent 
an  equal  amount  of  things  from  going  away  from  this  country.  There  can  be  no 
trade  except  by  the  exchange  of  two  or  more  things.  You  cannot  conceive  of  a  trade 
that  does  not  require  at  least  two  persons  to  make  it,  and  you  cannot  conceive  of  a 
trade  that  does  not  require  at  least  two  things  to  be  exchanged. 

When  we  see  that  Great  Britain  is  taking  52  per  cent  of  her  wheat  from  the  fields 
of  the  United  States  and  we  are  imposing  a  duty  upon  her  woolen  and  cotton,  and 
iron  and  steel,  and  glass,  and  other  goods,  it  is  easy  to  be  seen  that  we  are  keeping 
away  many  millions  of  her  products  that  would  come  here  and  exchange  for  our 
wheat,  and  thus  keeping  at  home  an  equal  amount  of  our  wheat.     .     .     . 

If  we  open  the  market  and  remove  the  obstruction  in  the  way  of  importation  and 
permit  importation  to  come  unchallenged  to  the  country,  what  would  be  the  first 
effect  of  it?  Increased  exportation,  preceded  by  increased  demand  for  cotton,  wheat, 
and  provisions.  What  would  follow  from  that?  Increased  prices  of  agricultural 
products?  Mr.  President,  the  very  same  products  which  we  export  now,  and  which 
bring  us  ^799,000,000,  would  then  bring  us  $150,000,000  more.  We  find  that,  when 
importations  fall  off  prices  fall  from  18  to  20  per  cent,  and  when  importations  flow  in 
the  prices  of  agricultural  products  rise  18  or  20  per  cent  or  more.     The  same  quantity 


TAllIFF  QUESTION  IN  TIIi:  UNITED  STATES. 


of  products  we  now  send  abroad  and  sell  for  1799,000,000  we  would  sell  for  more  than 
1900,000,000.  Then  all  these  millions  of  bushels  of  waste  wheat,  waste  corn,  waste 
oats,  and  other  farm  products  would  find  a  profitable  market  for  their  sale.  Our 
importations  would  increase  largely.  With  open  markets  I  do  not  doubt  but  that 
they  would  increase  $300,000,000.  It  was  said  in  another  place  that  if  this  bill  were 
passed  it  would  increase  our  imports  $250,000,000,  and  that  would  result  in  great 
injury  to  our  manufacturers  and  throw  out  of  employment  thousands  of  operatives 
and  reduce  the  wages  of  hundreds  of  thousands  more.  I  hope  the  bill  will  pass,  and 
that  it  will  increase  our  imports  $300,000,000. 

If  we  shall  have  fairly  good  crops  this  year  and  the  pending  bill  shall  become  a 
law,  importations  will  largelj'  increase;  and  if  the  crop  of  the  year  equals  that  of 
1S91,  the  increase  of  importations  will  go  to  $300,000,000,  and  if  it  does  exports  will 
increase  to  the  same  extent. 

This  speech  will  remind  the  reader  of  the  prophecies  and  fallacies 
which  Richard  Cobden  and  the  members  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  Leagtie 
used  to  the  farmers  of  England,  to  induce  them  to  abandon  protec- 
tion in  1846.  The  first  paragraph  quoted  from  Mr.  Mills,  that  "you 
cannot  conceive  of  a  trade  that  does  not  require  at  least  two  persons 
to  make  it,  and  you  cannot  conceive  of  a  trade  that  does  not  require 
at  least  two  things  to  be  exchanged,"  is  very  true,  yet  one  of  the 
things  exchanged  may  be  gold;  but  this  was  not  the  idea  which  Mr.  Mills 
intended  to  convey,  as  is  shown  by  what  follows.  He  intended  to 
convince  the  Senate  that  the  increased  imports  of  consumable  commodities 
would  necessarily  be  paid  for  by  exports  of  commodities  made  in  our 
factories  and  raised  on  our  farms.  The  experience  of  all  nations  shows 
that  this  has  not  occurred  under  free  trade  or  low  duties  in  an}'  country 
that  has  tried  the  experiment.  England  buys  $600, 000, ©00  more  than  she 
sells. 

In  every  low  tariff  period  of  the  United  States  we  have  purchased 
of  foreign  countries  more  than  we  have  sold  to  them,  and  we  have  settled 
the  balance  against  us  by  shipments  of  gold.  This  is  precisel}'  what  has 
occurred  and  is  occurring  now  since  the  bill  which  Mr.  Mills  advocated  has 
become  a  law.  There  is  one  prediction,  however,  which  Mr.  Mills  made, 
which  is  coming  true;  our  imports  of  foreign-made  goods  are  constantly 
increasing,  and  they  will  have  increased  by  $300,000,000,  the  sum  named 
by  Mr.  Mills,  if  the  bill  remains  on  the  statute  book  a  few  years  longer. 
But  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  foreigners  will  not  come  to  our  market 
and  purchase  either  agricultural  produce  or  manufactures,  until  we  offer 
them  for  sale  at  as  low  a  price  as  they  can  be  purchased  in  any  other 
country.  Until  this  can  be  done  they  will  take  our  gold  and  with  it  buy 
where  they  can  buy  the  cheapest. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  results  of  this  measure,  which  are  quite 
different  from  those  predicted  by  Mr.  Mills.  While  our  purchases  in  foreign 
countries  have  increased,  they  are  buying  less  of  us.  In  1892  our  foreign 
trade  was  the  largest  ever  known  in  the  history  of  the  country.  It  has 
now  greatly  declined,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  statistics: 


TRIUMPH  OF  DE3I0CBACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


Summary  Showing  the  Imports  and  Export's  of  the  United  States  for  the 

Years  i8g>2,  i8g4  and  i8g§,  Ending  fime  jo. 

Compiled  from  Bureau  Statistics  Treasury  Department. 


Merchandise. 


Total, 

Imports— Free  of  duty, 
Dutiable,     . 

Total.     , 


$1,030,278,148     1892.140,572 


:oin  and  Bullii 
Exports,    .   . 


Excess  of  exports. 


In  Ore- 
Exports, 


Coin  and  Bullii 


Excess  of  imports, 


In  Ore- 
Exports, 
Imports, 


Excess  of  imports, 


1827,402,462  ]    $654,994,622 

$188,329,; 
202,875,1 


$824,964,197 

$363,233,795 
363,736,170 


Calendar  Years. 


The  large  increase  of  dutiable  imports  has  occurred  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  wool  has  been  imported  free  of  duty  during  this  period. 

Some  of  the  above  imports  can  be  specified  as  follows,  the  figures  being 
for  the  first  ten  months  of  each  year: 


1S94.  1S95. 

113,981,398  149.899,717 

19,896,801  29(7 1 7,006 

20,982,366  27,555,042 

4,604,204  6,412,670 

9.477.944  11,377,619 

16,899,995  21,071,156 

4,567,109  8,010,272 

$90,409,817  $154,043,482 

Wool,  pounds, 83,223,270  211,057,038 


Woolen  goods,  .  .  . 
Cotton  goods,     .    .    . 

Silk  goods, 

Glass  and  glassware, 
Chemicals  (dutiable). 
Iron  and  Steel,  .  .  . 
Knit  goods 


Twports  of 
zvoolen 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


As  the  largest  increase  among  the  manufactures  has  been  in  woolen 
goods,  the  following  table  of  imports  of  specific  articles  is  given  that  the 
reader  may  see  just  what  kind  of  woolen  manufactures  we  are  deprived 
of     The  imports  for  the  last  four  years  are  given: 

Imports  of  Woolen  Goods — Ten  Months,  Ending  October  31. 


AKTICBS. 

-B.. 

1894. 

.893. 

18,2. 

Carpets                                           .    . 

$    1,356,307 
1,296,219 
21,807,899 
19,528,051 
1,988,340 
370,264 
1,632,852 
1,919,785 

$     614,421 

673,088 

4,775,874 

6,566,170 

503,669 

236,388 
542,235 

$    1,266,327 

948,374 

10,683,294 

12,834,060 

1,183,362 

53'5,639 
901,710 

$  1,303,718 
1,200,057 
11,803,471 
15,250,431 
1,273,161 
273,280 

566,933 

1,003,886 

Cloths,       

Dress  Goods 

Knit  Goods 

Shawls, 

All  other   . 

549,899,717 

113,981,398 

^28,580,986 

132,674,937 

The  following  table,  showing  our  exports  of  wool  and  woolens  com- 
pared with  the  increased  imports,  exposes  the  utter  unsoundness  of  free 
trade  contentions.  This  result  proves  one  of  two  things,  either  that  the 
advocates  of  free  trade  in  dealing  with  this  question  wholly  misjudged 
the  effect  of  low  duties  and  free  wool,  or  that  the  free  raw  material  argu- 
ment has  been  from  the  beginning  a  deception: 

Exports  of  American  Wooi,  and  Woolens  for  the  Calendar  Year  1S95. 

Wool,  raw,  5,706,708  pouuds 1689,874 

Woolens: 

Carpets,  312,987  yards, 176,061 

Flannels  and  blankets 33.454 

Wearing  apparel, 354,290 

All  other 219,080 


Total  manufacture, 

Total  exports,  1S95 |i, 472,759 

Total  imports,  1S95, 94,024,500 


1782,885 


Net  adverse  trade  balance. 


592.551,741 


Our  wool  clip  in  1890  was  309,000,000  pounds;  in  1893  it  had 
increased  to  364,000,000  pounds;  but  with  free  wool  it  had  fallen  in  1S95 
to  264,000,000  pounds,  a  decrease  of  100,000,000  pounds  and  a  destruction 
of  5,000,000  sheep.  The  total  value  of  our  sheep  in  1892  was  $1 16,000,000, 
and  $66,000,000  in  1895,  a  loss  of  $50,000,000.  In  1890  we  imported 
105,431,285  pounds  of  wool;  in  1895  the  imports  had  increased  to  248,- 
989,217  pounds.  The  benefit  British  manufacturers  and  exporters  have 
derived  from  the  reduced  duties  on  woolen  goods  and  from  free  wool,  will 
appear  from  the  following  table  taken  from  the  American  Economist, 
February  7,  1S96: 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


A  Year's  Experiment  with   Free  Raw  Material— Imports  of  Wooi,  and   rmports  < 
Woolen  Goods. 


Wools,  hair  of  the  camel,  goat,  alpaca, 
and  other  like  animals,  and  manu- 
factures of. 
Unmanufactured,  pounds: 
Class  I,  clothing,  free,  .    . 
Class  I,  clothing,  dutiable. 
Class  2,  combing,  free, 
Class  2,  combing,  dutiable 
Class  3,  carpet,  free,    .    .    . 
Class  3,  carpet,  dutiable,  . 

Total  imports  of  wool,  free,      .    . 
Total  imports  of  wool,  dutiable. 

Rags,  noils  and  wastes,  free,  pounds,    . 
Rags,  noils  and  wastes,  dutiable,  pounds, 

Wools,   hair  of  the   camel,  goat,   etc., 
continued. 
Manufactures  of: 

Wool,  carbonized,  dutiable,  pounds, 

Carpets  and  carpeting,  dutiable,  square 
yards,  

Clothing,  ready  made,  and  other  wear- 
ing apparel,  except  shawls  and  knit 
goods,  dutiable 

Cloths,  dutiable,  pounds, 

Dress  goods,  women's  and  children's, 
dutiable,  pounds, 

Knit  fabrics,  dutiable, 

Shawls,  dutiable,     . 

Yarns,  dutiable,  pounds, 

All  other,  dutiable, 


19,602,007;!  3 

12,931,532  2 
4.747.735 
S98,S.S5 

46,791,611  4 

30,764,990  2 


,287,589  126,435,569  $19,657,912 

028,330    

924,657!   18,757,042      4,092,656 

241.493    •    •  

149,620  103,796,606    10,019.591 
630,823    .\    .....    . 


61,141,413113,262,412,248,989,217133,770,159 
44.595, 407j   •    •    ■ 


Total  imports  of  woolens. 


333.623 


489,467 
43.843 


784,481 


18,174.321      1,949.819 
2,543.7871        809,659 


250,265  64,960 

S73.558'     1,428,684 


7,214,810 
38,183,519 


450,796 


744,740| I  1,401,370 

io4,793|  40,070,1431  25,281,668 

549,522;  30,143,137  22,549,485 

612,484 2,305,849 

83.391' '  426,047 

280,919;     3,651,550^  1,783,26s 

649.042, !  2,318,483 


$60,319,301 


.372; 


This  accounts  for  the  prostrate  condition  of  our  woolen  mills.  Not 
only  is  our  market  being  flooded  with  woolen  goods  of  the  kind  stated 
above,  but  under  the  reduced  duties  on  shodd}-  imposed  bj-  the  Gorman- 
Wilson  bill,  another  serious  difficultj'  is  met  with,  as  shown  b}^  the 
following: 

Total  imports  of  shoddy  under  four  years  of  McKinley  bill,     .    .    .     1,352,421 

Under  last  year  of  McKinley  bill, 143,002 

Under  first  year  of  Gorman-Wilson  tariff, 17,666,563 

This  will  prove  verj'  interesting  reading  to  those  who  have  heard 
Democratic  speakers  in  recent  campaigns  lament  the  use  of  shoddy.     The 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


fFect  of  this  will  be  seen  when  it  is  found  that  one  pound  of  shoddj-  takes 
the  place  of  three  pounds  of  wool ;  so  that  this  increased  importation  alone 
has  displaced  50,000,000  pounds  of  American  wool.  This  added  to  the 
imports  of  wool  itself,  will  make  nearly  200,000,000  pounds  of  American 
wool  displaced  in  one  year.  Our  farmers,  manufacturers  and  laborers 
have  lost  in  both  ways  by  this  legislation.  They  lost  $227,000,000  by 
decline  in  exports  in  the  first  sixteen  months,  and  over  $100,000,000  in 
increased  imports  of  goods  that  should  have  been  made  at  home. 

Comparing  our  foreign  trade  during  the  calendar  year  ending  Dec.  31, 

895,  with  that  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1892,  we  find  that 

our  exports  have  fallen  off  $208,000,000.     This  diminution  has  occurred 

n  our  dealings  with  Europe,  from  which  competing  imports  have  increased 

by  over  $100,000,000. 

Exports  of  American  Products. 

To  ■S92.  1895. 

Europe, $841,087,922  1627,975,133 

North  America,      101,463,351  108,604,088 

South  America 32.573,9=2  33,526,538 

Asia,      19,581,056  17,248,920 

Oceanica 15.274,896  13,106,351 

Africa 5,035,162  6,377,763 

All  other  countries, 7i5,_7o2  7oo,34o 

$1,015,732,011         1807,539.133 
Comparing  our  foreign  trade  in  agricultural  prodtice  during  the  first 
year  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill  with  the  first  year  following  the  McKinley 
bill,  we  find  that  imports  have  increased  over  $55,000,000,  while  exports 
have  declined  over  $69,000,000,  as  shown  by  the  following  tables: 


Agricultural  Imports. 

Last  Year  of 
McKinley  Law. 

Animals $966,559 

Breadstuffs 2,297,027 

Eggs 161,328 

FLix,         1,101,347 

Feathers ....  910,981 

Fruits 4,659,364 

Hav,      846,739 

Hemp 266,352 

Hides 10,480,562 

Hops 582,875 

Provisions 1,824,709 

Rice 2,566,089 

Seeds, 2,361,813 

Tobacco, 13-005,715 

Vegetables 3.083,400 

Wool 6,299,934 

Totals, $51,414,844 


First  Year  of 

orraan-W'ilson  L: 

$2,121,524 

2,895,297 

341,284 

2,545,610 

3,077,915 

5,335.499 

1,658,331 

632,468 

24,623,269 

601,188 

2,037,535 

3.497. >66 
7,146,504 

14.3S9.381 
3.858,7-0 

32,589,791 

$107,343,522 


TRIUMPH  OF  DE3I0CEACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


Exports. 

Hay ■ I    924,916  $    Soo.ocxj 

Hops 3.752,2'3  1,849,898 

Vegetables,      2,072,974  i, 775,551 

Oilcake  and  meal, 9,442,045  8,070,032 

Seeds, 8,03s, 558  2,972,242 

Corn, 31,207,331  19,032,404 

Wheat 67,793,499  52,339.232 

Flour, 78,062,212  59,226,244 

Provisions, 169, .831,131  155,493,282 

Totals, |37i,i24,.S79  1301.558,885 

The  greatest  hardship  inflicted  on  the  people  by  this  legislation  is 
found  in  the  reduced  wages  and  lack  of  employment  to  which  our  wage- 
earners  have  been  subjected.  During  the  summer  of  1895  the  American 
Protective  Tariff  League  made  an  investigation  to  determine  the  average 
number  of  hands  employed  in  different  industries,  during  the  first  half  of 
the  years  1890,  1892,  1894  and  1895,  together  with  the  percentage  of 
wages  paid,  the  rate  of  1890  being  taken  as  a  full  standard.  Almost  500 
reports  were  received  from  eighty-five  different  industries.  The  returns 
upon  the  comparative  number  of  hands  employed  showed  the  following 
result,  as  stated  by  the  American  Economist: 

These  returns  show  that  the  same  industries  employed  9530  more  hands  in  1892 
than  in  1S90,  an  increase  of  I2  per  cent.  In  1894  they  employed  24,081  hands  less 
than  in  1892,  a  decrease  of  26  per  cent  ;  in  the  early  part  of  1S95  they  employed  11,756 
more  hands  than  in  1894,  but  12,325  less  hands  than  in  1892,  and  2795  less  even  than 
in  1890.  For  1895  the  employment  of  labor  shows  an  increase  of  17  per  cent  as  com- 
pared with  1S94,  a  decrease  of  13  per  cent  as  compared  with  1892,  and  a  decrease  of 
3  per  cent  as  compared  with  1890. 

As  to  the  reduction  of  wages  the  American  Economist  also  said: 

These  facts  show  that  the  average  of  wages  paid  in  1892  was  5  per  cent  higher 
than  in  1S90 ;  in  1893  it  was  16  per  cent  less  than  in  i8go,  and  21  per  cent  less  than  in 
1892  ;  while  for  the  1895  period  the  average  rate  of  wages  paid  was  14  per  cent  less 
than  in  i8go,  17  per  cent  less  than  in  1892,  and  only  2  per  cent  greater  than  in  1894. 
While  those  reported  "advances"  in  wages  have  been  diligently  announced  in  the 
cases  of  the  few  industries  that  have  been  enabled  to  make  them,  nothing  has  been 
heard  of  the  far  more  numerous  other  instances  wherein  the  wage-earners  have  not 
been  so  fortunate. 

Comparing  the  effect  of  this  measure  upon  the  wage-earners  of  the 
country  with  the  effect  of  the  McKinley  bill,  as  shown  by  an  investigation 
made  by  the  Protective  Tariff  League,  the  American  Economist  said: 

These  results  can  be  briefly  tabulated  as  follows  : 

McKiNi,EY  Census  of  1S92. 

Extra  hands  employed, 37.285 

New  capital  invested, |4o,ooo,ooo 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


vDusTRiAL  Census,  October,  1S93.    Since  November,  1S92 


Decrease  in  labor 60V2  per  cent 

Decrease  in  wages, 69  per  cent 

Decrease  in  business 47.2  per  cent 

Number  of  hands  out  of  work, 101,763 

Total  loss  in  weekly  wages, $1,202,851.36 

Average  decrease  in  rate  of  wages, $2.35  per  week 

Industrial  Census,  October,  1S94.    Since  1S90  Census. 

Decrease  in  labor 30  per  cent 

Decrease  in  wages 45  per  cent 

Decrease  in  product  value 44  per  cent 

Decrease  in  cost  of  material, 44  per  cent 


Wages  and  Labor  Census,  September,  1S95. 


Comparison  ■ 


1S90, —  3  per  cent.  —14 

1S92, — 13  per  cent.  ^17 

1S94 +17  per  cent.  +  2 

From  this  last  investigation  it  is  apparent  that  the  industrial  condition  of  the 
United  States  has  retrograded  more  than  half  a  decade.  Si,'j  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  taking  of  the  census  of  1889,  and  we  find  that  3  per  cent  less  labor  is 
employed  now  than  then,  also  that  labor  earned  this  year  at  the  rate  of  14  per  cent 
less  wages  than  in  1889.  The  results,  as  applied  to  the  whole  country,  appear  in  the 
following  exhibit: 

CF.N.SUS  OF  1890.  Investigation  of  1895, 

Wages  earned 12,283,216,529— 14  per  cent,  11,963,566,215 

Hands  employed, 4,712,622 —  3  per  cent,  4,571,243 

The  result  of  a  Democratic  administration  and  a  free  trade  fanatic  Con- 
gress is  that  labor  was  earning  $300,000,000  less  this  year  than  in  1SS9.  We 
have  to  thank  the  more  conservative  Democratic  Congressmen  that  the  result  was 
not  worse. 

The  reduction  in  wages  and  loss  to  the  laborers  of  the  couiitr}-  have 
not  been  confined  to  those  directl}'  employed  in  manuiactories,  but  have 
extended  to  all  branches  of  employment.  Yet  the  specific  reductions  in 
wages  have  not  occasioned  so  much  loss  as  the  lack  of  employment  which 
has  prevailed  in  the  building  trade,  transportation  and  every  other  branch 
of  business. 


TBIUMPH  OF  DE3I0CRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


The  persistency  of  the  panic  is  shown  by  the  report  from  Bradstreet 
giving  the  failures  during  the  years  of  1894  and  1895  as  follows: 


Section. 

Number  of  Failures. 

Liabilities. 

1894. 

1895. 

1,686 
3,082 
3,2iS 

i,iSo 
33S 

■894. 

.895. 

Eastern, 

3!oi8 
2,885 
1.247 
2,202 
1,182 
403 

118,790,018 
51,493,787 
30,138,654 

2ii285',698 
10,608,257 
2,077,805 

$19,914,153 
51,239.432 
32.727.634 
19,216,225 
24,811,939 
9,211,208 
1.721,854 

Middle,     . 

Northwestern, 

Southern,     

Territories, 

United  States 

12,721 

13.013 

$149,595,434 

1158,842,445 

Trade  Failures. 

Under  Cleveland,  1894, 12,721 

Under  Harrison,  1892, 10,034 

Cleveland's  extra  "  Industry  of  the  Sheriff," 2,687 

This  is  the  largest  number  of  failures  reported  since  the  record  was 
commenced  in  1879,  excepting  those  which  occurred  in  1893. 

The  returns  made  by  Bradstreet,  showing  the  bank  clearings  in 
eighty-three  cities,  during  ten  months  of  1892  compared  with  ten 
months  of  1895,  show  a  falling  off  of  over  $7,000,000,000.  The  figures 
are  as  follows: 


Bank  Clearings,  Ten  Months  to  October  31. 

Section.  1S92.  1895. 

New  England, f4, 790,036, 183  JS4, 518,691, 568 

Middle 33,965,804,047  28,181,467,985 

Western, 1,886,617,431  1,713,486,517 

Northwestern, .  5,472,972,197  4,771,271,425 

Southwestern,      1,665,789,528  1,712,239,391 

Southern 1.552,748,083  1,402,658,651 

Far  Western, 1,097.654,857  819,829,133 


Total  United  States, 


$50,401, 622, 326        143,119,644,670 


The  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  although  designed  as  a  revenue  measure, 
has  failed  to  provide  the  government  with  sufficient  funds  to  pay  its  run- 
ning expenses.    The  receipts  of  the  government  have  constantly  diminished 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


September, 
October,  . 
November, 
December, 


January,  . 
February, 
March, .  . 
April,  .  . 
May,  .  .  . 
June,  .  . 
July,.  .  . 
August,  . 
September, 
October,  . 
November, 
December, 


until  the  deficiency  has  reached  about  $74,000,000.     The  details  are  as 
follows: 


January, 


Totals I429.323.353 


Receipts. 


122,621,228 
19,139,240 
19,411,403 
21,866,136 

27,804,399 
22,888,057 
25,470,575 
24,247,836 
25,272,078 
25,615,474 
29,069,697 
28,952,696 
27,549,678 
27,901,748 
25,986,503 
26,288,937 

29,237,670 


$30,323,018 
32,713,039 
28,477,188 
27,135,460 

34,523,447 
25,696,035 
25,716,957 
32,990,676 
28,558,213 
21,683,029 
38,548,063 
32,588,184 
24,320,481 
34,503,425 
27,199,283 
25,814,317 
32.696,830 


17,701,789 
13,573,800 
9,065,785 
•5,269,324 

6,719,047 
2,807,978 
246,382 
8,742,839 
3,286,136 

*3,932,415 
9,478,366 
3,635.488 

*3,229,i96 
6,601,677 
1,212,780 
*474,62o 

3,459,159 


t  Net  deficit. 


While  this  has  occurred,  the  administration  has  continually  borrowed 
money  and  increased  the  national  debt.  From  March  i,  1869,  until 
March  i,  1893,  the  Republican  party  reduced  the  national  debt  as 
follows: 

March  I,  1869, $280,430,492 

March  1,  1873, 403,948,484 

March  1,  1877 65,204,017 

March  I,  1881 73,646,781 

March  1,  1SS5, 480,161,982 

March  1,  1889 341,448,449 

March  i,  1S93 236,527,666 

Total  reduction, 11,881,367,873 

While  Republican  administrations  were  debt  reducing  administrations, 
the  reverse  has  been  the  case  since  Mr.  Cleveland  was  inaugurated.  By 
March  i,  1895,  the  national  debt  had  been  increased  by  $105,328,774,  and 
on  December  i,  1895,  $57,273,470  were  added,  making  a  total  increa.se  of 
$162,602,245,  to  which  has  since  been  added  $100,000,000.  This  amount 
is  exclusive  of  the  increased  interest  account  which  must  necessarily 
follow.  While  the  Republican  party  during  this  time  paid  off  an  average 
of  $5,701,114  each  month,  the  Democratic  partj-  since  it  came  into  power, 
has  increased  the  national  debt  by  $7,502,921  a  month. 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


In  March,  1893,  when  the  Repubhcan  party  turned  the  government 
over  to  Mr.  Cleveland  it  left  a  considerable  surplus  in  the  treasury  and 
a  gold  reserve  of  $100,000,000  unimpaired.  In  the  .short  space  of  three 
years  the  surplus  has  been  wiped  out,  the  gold  reserve  has  been  invaded, 
and  obligations,  including  the  deficiency  and  principal  and  interest  of  the 
increased  national  debt,  of  over  $522,000,000  have  been  incurred.  But 
this  is  only  a  small  part  of  the  injury  inflicted  by  the  brief  free  trade 
period  which  the  Democratic  party  has  given  to  the  people. 

However  great  our  loss  may  be  in  foreign  commerce,  and  our 
national  finances,  it  is  insignificant  when  compared  with  the  disasters 
which  have  befallen  our  home  trade,  and  the  want  and  suffering  it  has 
brought  to  the  firesides  of  our  wage-earners.  The  closing  of  mills, 
the  enforced  idleness  of  labor,  the  bankruptcy  and  ruin  of  business 
men,  have  made  the  loss  to  the  whole  country  incalculable.  Our  manu- 
factures in  1890  amounted  to  $9,370,000,000.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
had  the  Republican  measure  of  1890  remained  in  force,  b}'  Januarj', 
1S96,  they  would  have  reached  over  $12,000,000,000.  While  at  the 
close  of  1892  they  amounted  to  at  least  $10,000,000,000,  it  has  been 
estimated  by  careful  and  reliable  authorities  that  in  1895  the  products 
of  our  factories  did  not  exceed  $5,000,000,000,  a  falling  off  of  nearly 
one-half.  As  nearly  90  per  cent  of  this  represents  the  earnings  of 
labor,  it  will  be  seen  how  seriously  the  masses  of  our  people  have  been 
affected  by  less  than  two  years  of  low  tariff.  What  the  result  would 
have  been  had  the  Wilson  bill  as  it  left  the  House  become  a  law,  it  is 
difficult  to  estimate.  That  the  ruin  would  have  been  more  widespread 
and  complete,  cannot  now  be  seriously  questioned.  But  as  it  is,  no 
further  demonstratfon  is  necessary  at  least  with  this  generation,  to  expose 
and  condemn  the  fallacies  of  free  trade.  Every  free  trade  prediction 
and  promise  which  has  been  made  to  the  American  people  during  the  past 
ten  years,  is  unfulfilled.  Instead  of  our  farmers  getting  better  prices  for 
their  farm  produce,  and  .shipping  their  wheat,  corn,  pork,  etc.,  in  larger 
quantities  to  Europe  in  exchange  for  clothing  and  wares,  our  gold  has 
been  exported  in  payment  for  imports  of  these  commodities,  while  our 
farmers  have  been  left  with  a  diminished  home  market,  seeking  in  vain 
for  a  ready  sale  of  their  produce.  With  free  wool  and  low  duties,  our 
woolen  industry-  is  prostrate,  and  our  mills  are  idle, while  those  of  England 
are  busy  flooding  our  markets  with  fabrics  which  formerl}'  were  made  b\- 
our  own  labor.  With  imports  of  competing  commodities  increasing,  our 
exports  are  declining.  Instead  of  capturing  the  markets  of  the  world,  the 
world  is  taking  possession  of  our  market. 

Notwith.standing  that  wages  have  been  reduced  to  adjust  our  manu- 
facturing to  the  conditions  impo.sed  by  reduced  duties  on  imports,  yet  our 
mills  are  running  on  short  time  and  many  of  them  are  closed.  The 
country  has  been  constantly  filled  with  idle  workmen,  the  incomes  of  our 


Wf^Z 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STA'i 


people  have  been  diminished  and  the  depression  in  trade  has  been  so  per- 
sistent that  thousands  of  business  men  have  struggled  along  on  the  border- 
line of  failure,  while  others,  unable  to  withstand  the  loss  of  trade,  have 
been  forced  into  bankruptcj'. 

Soon  after  the  passage  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  it  was  predicted 
that  times  would  revive  and  the  Democratic  press  of  the  country-  put  forth 
its  greatest  endeavors  to  inspire  the  people  with  confidence  and  bring  about 
a  revival  in  biisiness.  Each  recurring  month  our  business  men  have  looked 
forward  to  that  long  hoped-for  event,  but  in  vain.  The  fall  trade  did  not 
respond,  again  the  spring  trade  and  the  summer  trade  were  no  better,  until 
two  years  have  rolled  by  and  the  situation  remains  the  same.  This  con- 
dition of  business  has  occurred  in  the  midst  of  abundant  harvests,  with 
all  our  natural  resources,  rich  soil  and  favorable  climate  unimpaired,  and 
in  spite  of  the  genius,  energy,  industry  and  perseverance  of  our  people. 
It  has  been'  finally  demonstrated  that  it  does  make  a  difference  after 
all,  which  party  is  in  power  and  what  commercial  policy  the  nation  pur- 
sues. Had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  the  elections  of  1894  and  1895  were 
carried  overwhelmingly  by  the  Republican  party  from  Maine  to  California, 
and  that  the  prospect  existed  of  a  restoration  of  the  policy  of  protection, 
bankruptcy  would  have  become  uni^•ersal. 

It  has  been  a  common  contention  of  free  traders  during  the  recent 
agitation  of  this  question,  that  they  desired  to  secure  to  our  manufacturers 
free  raw  materials,"  that  they  might  thereby  manufacture  cheaper  and  com- 
pete with  foreign  producers  in  the  markets  of  the  world.  That  this 
claim  is  a  sham  is  perfectly  apparent.  The  agents-  of  the  Cobden 
Club  were  not  sent  to  the  United  States  to  aid  in  enabling  our  manu- 
facturers to  divide  the  markets  of  the  world  with  British  producers.  The 
endorsement  which  the  free  traders  of  the  United  States  have  received 
from  the  British  press,  and  the  courtesies  and  compliments  bestowed  upon 
Chairman  Wilson  at  a  banquet  tendered  to  him  in  England  shortly  after 
the  adjournment  of  Congress,  for  the  distinguished  services  which  he  had 
rendered  the  cause,  certainly  ought  to  be  proof  that  our  foreign  rivals  have 
no  fear  that  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  associates  will  confer  upon  the  manu- 
facturers of  the  United  States  any  advantages  which  will  conflict  with 
British  interests. 

It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  protectionists  to  place  on  the  free  list 
every  article  of  raw  material  the  like  of  which  cannot  be  produced  at  home. 
They  also  regard  our  mining  and  agricultural  interests  as  productive 
industries  and  entitled  to  the  same  consideration  under  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection, as  any  other.  Our  manufacturers  have  been  given  free  raw  silk, 
rubber,  hides,  chemicals  and  dye  stuffs,  which  are  not  produced  here:  and 
by  the  act  of  1883  any  citizen  who  desired  to  manufacture  for  export 
trade,  could  import  all  raw  materials  for  that  purpose  at  a  duty  of  10 
per  cent,  which  was  reduced  by  the  McKinley  bill  to  i  per  cent.     Under 


TRIUMPH  UF  DEJIOCHACr  AXJ)  FREE  TRADE. 


these  conditions  we  have  a  right  to  say  that  no  valid  basis  exists  for  the 
free  raw  material  claim  so  persistently  urged  by  Mr.  Cleveland. 

But  what  are  raw  materials?  When  the  free  trader  speaks  of  free 
raw  materials  he  is  using  a  deceptive  term  unless  he  qualifies  it  as  he 
always  fails  to  do.  Iron  ore  and  coal  at  the  mill  are  not  raw  materials. 
Wool  is  not  raw  material,  cotton  is  not  raw  material.  They  are  the 
embodiment  of  human  labor.  For  the  sake  of  a  convenient  expression, 
however,  we  use  the  term  "  raw  material,"  meaning  the  material  which 
forms  the  basis  of  an  industry.  The  term  is  relative.  Henry  C.  Carey 
in  his  manual  of  Social  Science  said  : 

All  the  products  of  the  earth  are  in  turn  finished  commodity  and  raw  material. 
Coal  and  ore  are  the  finished  commodity  of  the  miner,  but  the  raw  material  of  pig 
iron.  The  latter  is  the  finished  commodity  of  the  smelter,  yet  only  the  raw  material 
of  the  puddler,  and  of  him  who  rolls  the  bar.  The  bar  is  again  the  raw  material  of 
sheet  iron,  and  that,  in  turn,  becomes  the  raw  material  of  the  nail  and  the  spike. 

Some  writers  use  the  term  as  applying  to  such  crude  materials  as  have 
gone  through  no  process  of  manufacture  whatever,  but  it  would  be  difficult 
to  draw  the  line.  It  matters  not  what  we  call  raw  material  so  long  as  we 
bear  in  mind  the  labor  that  has  been  expended  on  it.  The  daily  paper 
that  costs  but  one  cent  may  be  raw  material  for  the  mill  that  converts  it 
into  other  grades  for  further  use,  yet  millions  of  dollars  and  years  of  labor 
have  been  spent  in  its  preparation. 

Knowing  full  well  that  the  American  people  would  not  adopt  free 
trade  at  one  stroke  the  cunning  free  trader  proposes  to  start  with  fi-ee 
"  raw  material,"  leading  up  to  a  gradual  extermination  of  all  industries. 
This  he  freely  admits.'  The  value  of  our  total  products  of  manufactures  in 
1 890  as  given  by  the  census  was  about  $9,000,000,000,  the  value  of  material 
used  $5,000,000,000.  The  "raw  material"  then  was  worth  more  before 
the  last  process  of  manufacture  than  it  gained  in  becoming  the  last 
finished  product.  Supposing  for  the  moment  then,  that  the  free  trader 
were  willing  to  stop  with  free  so-called  raw  materials,  more  than 
one-half  of  our  industries  would  close,  more  than  one-half  of  our  work- 
men would  be  thrown  out  of  employment,  more  than  one-half  of  our 
wages  would  be  lost.  By  reducing  the  wages  of  the  less  than  one-half 
of  employees  that  remained,  we  might  sell  a  few  things  in  Europe, 
Asia  and  Africa.  We  could  not  sell  to  England  or  Germany  or  France 
or  Russia  or  Italy  or  Spain,  or  to  any  of  the  countries  which  raanu 
facture  for  themselves.  We  could  not  sell  in  other  markets  unless  we 
reduced  wages  to  less  than  those  paid  by  countries  now  selling  in  these 
markets.  The  real  fact  is  we  would  simply  become  a  bankrupt  nation  at 
the  mercy  of  any  power  which  thought  it  worth  the  while  to  absorb  us. 
The  whole  thing  is  an  absurdity,  a  bubble  of  the  utmo.st  transparency. 
Every  blow  at  any  manufacture  whether  it  be  coal  that  gives  emplo3mient 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


to  the  miner  or  the  rail  that  keeps  the  puddler  at  work,  whether  it  be 
wool  that  adds  to  the  farmer's  income  or  the  cloth  that  gives  work  to  the 
tailor,  is  a  direct  blow  to  labor  and  the  laborer.  While  the  census  value 
of  so-called  raw  material  is  but  a  little  more  than  half  the  value  of  the 
finished  product  it  will  hardl}^  be  disputed  that  at  least  three  persons  are 
engaged  in  producing  the  so-called  raw  material  to  one  engaged  in  pro- 
ducing the  last  finished  product.  Even  if  it  were  a  benefit  to  import  this 
so-called  raw  material  free  of  duty  per  se  it  is  contrarj-  to  sound  economic 
doctrine,  it  is  contrary  to  common  sense,  to  throw  three  men  out  of 
employment  to  benefit  one  even  were  the  one  to  be  benefited.  With  the 
markets  of  the  world  hardly  worth  the  taking  into  account  in  comparison 
with  our  own  which  consumes  not  only  all  we  can  produce  in  times  of 
prosperity,  but  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  foreign  productions  as  well,  and 
with  three-fourths  of  this  market  made  powerless  to  purchase,  how  long 
would  the  one-quarter  of  our  people  engaged  in  the  last  manufacture  have 
employment?  It  is  a  physical,  natural  and  economical  impossibility  for 
our  twenty  millions  of  workmen  all  to  be  engaged  in  making  the  last 
finished  product.  Suppose  our  10,000,000  farmers  could  leave  their  farms 
and  make  plows,  who  would  use  the  plows?  Suppose  a  million  miners 
could  leave  the  mines  and  make  picks  and  shovels,  who  would  use  the 
picks  and  shovels  ?     The  whole  framework  here  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  to  take  another  phase  of  the  free  traders'  argument.  We  are  told 
that  the  raw  materials  (here  the  word  is  used  in  the  strict  sense  as  meaning 
coal  and  ore  and  wool  and  cotton)  are  dearer  than  if  we  imported  them  free. 
They  may  be  or  they  may  not  be.  Suppose  they  are,  what  does  it  matter? 
Take  a  locomotive  worth  $20,000.  How  much  was  the  raw  material, 
strictly  speaking,  worth  ?  $200  perhaps.  The  $20,000  is  all  labor  and 
ability.  How  much  is  a  pound  of  flaxseed  worth  ?  A  few  cents.  It  is 
put  into  the  ground,  the  harvested  thread  is  made  into  cambrics,  laces  and 
embroideries,  some  of  which  are  worth  $100,000  a  ton.  Take  a  telescope 
worth  thousands  of  dollars  or  a  printing  press  worth  the  same  amount,  or  an 
ocean  steamship  worth  $2,000,000  :  how  much  did  the  raw  material  cost? 
Comparatively  little.  They  are  simply  monuments  of  labor  and  genius, 
and  the  highest  genius  and  best  paid  labor  on  earth  is  found  in  our 
country  and  a  protective  tariff  has  created,  fostered  and  maintained  them. 
Protection  is  not  partial  legislation,  it  is  complete.  We  do  not.  protect 
our  heads  and  let  the  rest  of  our  bodies  go  bare.  There  would  soon  be 
no  body  for  the  head  to  rest  on.  Every  member  from  head  to  foot  must 
have  equal  care  and  so  mu.st  every  member  of  our  industrial  body.  All 
are  interdependent.  The  interests  of  the  miner  .should  be  of  equal  concern 
with  those  of  the  skilled  artisan.  The  farm  hand  is  as  important  to  our 
indu.stral  life  as  the  mill  hand.  The  question  then  of  free  ' '  raw  material 
is  a  question  of  labor  and  wages,  a  question  solely  of  industrial  life  or 
death. 


THIU.VPff  OF  DE?[OCRArY  AND  FREE  TBADE. 


If,  however,  there  were  in  any  instance  any  advantage  in  importing 
materials  that  enter  into  the  making  of  a  finished  product,  if  by  so  doing 
any  manufacturer  could  sell  that  product  in  a  foreign  market  in  competi- 
tion with  foreign  manufacturers,  then  he  may  do  so  to  his  heart's  content, 
for  he  can  even  now  import  that  material  free  of  duty  save  one  per  cent  of 
its  cost.  But  we  have  free  raw  materials  without  importing  them.  Have 
we  gained  the  markets  of  the  world  with  the  last  finished  product  ?  Cotton 
is  free.  Hides  are  free.  Silk  is  free.  Rubber  is  free.  How  does  the 
balance  of  trade  stand  in  the  manufactured  articles  ?  The  following  table 
will  show: 

Importation  of  Exportation  of 

Kaw  Materials,  Manufactured  Manufactured 

DfTY  Free.  Goods.  1S90.  Goods,  1S90. 

Cotton 132,012,359  fii, 113,431 

Hides,      12,563,183  12,275,470 

Paper  stock,   .    .        2,898,448  1,239,420 

Silk,      41,085,990  65,011 

Total 189,459-980  124,693,332 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  import  more  than  three  times  as 
much  as  we  export  of  the  manufactured  products  from  these  free  ' '  raw 
materials." 

Our  exports  of  cotton  goods,  boots,  shoes  and  leather  in  i860 
amounted  to  $12,391,630,  or  37^2  cents  per  capita.  In  1880  thej' 
amounted  to  $16,653,080,  or  33  cents  per  capita.  In  1890,  to  $21,331,495, 
or  34  cents  per  capita.  Wherein  are  we  capturing  the  markets  of  the 
world  with  ' '  free  raw  material  ?' '  The  whole  theorj'  is  a  free  trade 
delusion,  an  economic  fallacy,  a  practical  failure;  there  is  not  a  particle 
of  benefit  to  be  derived,  there  is  nothing  but  loss  of  labor,  loss  of  wages, 
loss  of  manhood,  loss  of  life.  The  contention  is  a  deception  and  humbug, 
because  the  ultimate  purpose  is  to  withdraw  protection  from  the  finished 
product  as  well  and  subject  it  to  ruinous  competition  under  free  trade.  The 
desire  is  no  stronger  for  free  wool  than  it  is  for  free  woolen  goods. 

The  chief  contention  of  the  free  traders  of  to-day  in  the  United  States 
is  that  so-called  free  raw  material  will  give  us  increased  foreign  markets. 
We  have  had  free  wool  for  a  year,  with  the  result  that  we  are  not  only 
losing  foreign  markets,  but  losing  our  own  as  well. 

It  will  be  instructive  in  this  connection  to  see  just  what  value 
foreign  markets  would  have  for  us  if  we  could  gain  them  to  the 
exclusion  of  every  competitor.  The  total  imports  of  all  other  countries 
besides  our  own  in  1888,  as  gathered  from  the  latest  or  most  reliable 
statistics  available,  amounted  to  $7,569,000,000.  This  sum  repre- 
sents the  total  markets  of  the  world — Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  North 
and    South   America,    Australia,  and  all   the    islands  of  the  sea.     The 


factuted 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


following  figures  will  show  the  value  of  our  own  market  to  our  producers 
1890: 

American  manufactures, |9.054>435.337 

American  farm  products,  at  least 7,000,000,000 

Foreign  goods,      •  789.310,409 

Total 116,843,745,746 

We  exported  of  all  products 845,293,828 

American  market, |i5.99S.45i.9i8 

Foreign  markets, ■        7,569,000,000 

American  over  all  available  foreign  markets,  .      18,429,451,918 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  American  market  is  worth  more  than  twice 
much  to  us  as  all  foreign  markets  combined,  even  if  we  could  possess 
them  exclusivelj'.  It  would  be  the  height  of  folly,  then,  to  sacrifice  our 
home  market  to  gain  the  foreign.  But  can  we  gain  any  more  of  the  foreign 
market  than  we  now  possess?  Surely  we  have  gained  nothing  so  far 
under  a  year  of  free  trade.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  lost  to  the  extent 
of  over  $200,000,000.  We  can  look  for  no  increased  sales  of  manufac- 
tures to  Great  Britain,  "  the  workshop  of  the  world,"  where  the  cost 
of  production  is  but  little  more  than  half  of  ours,  and  as  for  increased 
.sales  of  agricultural  products  a  .study  of  Table  No.  31,  on  pages  760-1, 
will  show  the  growing  competition  our  farmers  are  now  having  from  all  parts 
of  the  world.  Although  the  table  has  been  confined  to  English  imports  of 
agricultural  products  a  similar  exhibit  could  be  made  for  France  and  Ger- 
many. It  will  be  seen  to  what  extent  our  exports  of  wheat  and  corn  to  Eng- 
land have  fallen  off,  while  her  purchases  from  Russia  and  the  Argentine 
Republic  have  increased.  The  following  table  will  show  the  competition 
of  wheat  in  recent  years : 


English  Imports  01 

Wheat— Qu 

ENTITIES. 

From 

1892. 

Bushels. 

^.l&. 

Bu's&. 

Russia 

8,144,240 
1,131,692 
63,255.251 
6,470,045 
3,764,779 

18,782,377 
675,893 
60,223,982 
14,645.095 
4,833.897 

31,412,560 

P          ' 

1,334,746 

United  States,  .        

46,028,723 
24,774.683 

7,237,846 

France  grew  more  of  her  own  wheat  stipply  in  1S94  than  in  1892, 
buying  25,000,000  bushels  le.ss  from  the  United  States  and  more  from 
Russia  and  the  Argentine  Republic. 

Germany  bought  12,000,000  bushels  less  from  the  United  States  in 
1894  than  in  1S92  but  bought  considerably  more  from  Roumania,  Ru.ssia, 
and  the  Argentine  Republic,  her  purchases  from  the  latter  country  increas- 
ing by  about  the  same  quantity  as  her  purchases'  from  the  United  States 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEJIOCRACY  AXD  FREE  TRADE. 


decreased.  France  and  Germany  too  are  competing  successfully  with 
England  in  manufactures  as  are  other  countries.  This  has  been  proven 
conclusively  in  preceding  pages.  We  cannot  then  hope  to  sell  to  coun- 
tries whose  own  productions  are  increasing,  whose  wages  are  less,  and 
hours  of  labor  longer. 

Go  where  we  will  under  present  conditions  there  is  no  market  to  gain 
on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Other  nations  are  not  only  producing  for  them- 
selves, but  are  also  looking  for  foreign  markets,  and  particularly  for  a 
portion  of  the  greatest  market  on  earth,  the  American  market.  This 
market  has  been  created  and  built  up  under  protection  and  can  be  re- 
tained only  by  a  continuance  of  protection.  Already  in  a  single  j-ear  of  par- 
tial free  trade  we  have  lost  over  $100,000,000  of  it,  which  has  been  gained 
bj'  foreign  producers.  If  we  had  gained  foreign  markets  to  the  extent  of 
our  loss  it  would  not  have  been  so  great  a  sacrifice,  but  we  lost  $200,000,- 
000  worth  of  foreign  markets  while  losing  $100,000,000  of  our  own. 

In  the  words  of  Lord  Salisbury  in  a  speech  made  in  Hastings,  Eng- 
land, in  May,  1892  : 

We  live  in  an  age  of  a  war  of  tariffs.  Every  nation  is  trying  how  it  can,  by  agree- 
ment with  its  neighbor,  get  the  greatest  possible  protection  for  its  own  industries, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  greatest  possible  access  to  the  markets  of  its  neighbors. 
The  weapon  with  which  they  all  fight  is  admission  to  their  own  markets— that  is 
to  say,  A.  says  to  B,  "  If  you  will  make  your  duties  such  that  I  can  sell  in  your  mar- 
kets. I  will  make  mj^  duties  such  that  you  can  sell  in  my  market."  But  we 
begin  by  saying  we  will  levy  no  duties  on  anybody,  and  we  declare  that  it  would  be 
contrary  and  disloyal  to  the  glorious  and  sacred  doctrine  of  free  trade  to  lev3-  an}- 
duty  on  anybody  for  the  sake  of  what  we  can  get  by  it.  It  may  be  noble,  but  it  is 
not  business.  On  those  terms  you  will  get  nothing,  and  I  am  sorrj-  tp  have  to  tell  you 
that  you  are  practically  getting  nothing. 

And  yet  this  is  precisely  what  our  free  traders  would  do.  They 
would  take  our  onl)-  weapon  and  put  us  at  a  disadvantage  with  all  the 
world.  A  disadvantage  that  cannot  be  overcome  except  in  one  way  :  b}' 
reducing  our  wages  to  the  level  of  our  competitors.  Even  that  would  not 
gain  for  us  the  foreign  markets  so  much  sought  after.  It  would  only 
enable  us  to  hold  our  own.  It  is  a  most  serious  matter  to  contemplate, 
and  it  concerns  the  wage-earner  and  farmer  far  more  than  the  manufac- 
turer. The  question  of  a  home  market  is  of  paramount  importance  to  the 
American  agriculturist.  He  can  find  no  increased  market  abroad.  The 
world  has  been  searched  in  vain.  He  must  therefore  depend  on  the  home 
market,  and  to  be  of  value  that  market  must  be  maintained  by  American 
wages.  But  President  Cleveland  and  other  free  traders  have  raised  a 
doubt  of  the  worth  of  our  home  market  by  asserting  that  we  have  already 
shown  a  capacity  for  producing  far  more  than  there  is  a  home  demand  for. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  ascertain  the  truth  about  the  matter.  We  have 
but  to  go  back   to  the  year  1892,  the  year  of  greatest  production   the 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Tab/e  Showing  Imports  of  Agricultural  P}-oducts 
Compiled  fioyn  "  Armual  Statement-of 


United  States. 


Number 
Wheat, 


of  oxen,  bulls,  cows  and 
-of  sheep  and  lambs,  .  .  .  . 


Pork,  fresh  and  salted,  lbs  , 


.ificial  lard,  lbs  , 


ved,  lbs., 


aiid  condiments,  lbs. 

mdensed  and  preser\'ed,  lbs., 

unrefined,  lbs., 

refined,  lbs 

glucose,    solid   and   liquid, 


r    uioH 

sses 

lbs. 
ine, 

.w  and 
s.  11.-,, 

lbs., 

m.'ravv 

lbs. 

V.  11>S 

i.  lbs      

4.843 
46,028,723 
3.534.419 
124,315 
19,142,134 
32.760 
1,441.657 


17,306,802 
3.359. 55<J 
6,352,774 


1,168,694 
679,056 
92.482 


6,050,240 
8,310,400 
309,231 


64.567 
162,535 
283,671 


'369^928 
94,209,248 

2.045,456 

7,298,596 

153.305.4S8 


318,976 
1,022,560 
4.052,511 


'.973.832 

98! 134 
50,492 
154.045 
227,175 
7,825,840 


,,696 


34,641,600 
15,171.632 
18.497,584 
120,008,224 
33.453.616 
308,840 


15,428,560 

2,246,944 

858,704 

31,371,088 


107.520 
353,510 


1,470.972 

637,800 

564,863,376 

962,692,528 


1,493.30s 
57.882U96 


17,560,240 
4,921.952 
5.932.528 

22,778,551 


21,756 
i;o92.735 
4,113.164 


8,583.344 
i.o6;,39S 


TlilUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AXD  FREE  TRADE. 


No.  31. 

77110  the  United  Kingdom  for  the  Year  1894. 
the  Trade  of  the  United  Kingdovt." 


British 

North  America 

and 

British 

East  Indies. 


United 

States 

Per  Cent 

of  Total. 


United 
States 
Per  Cent 
of  Total. 


82,32: 
I.1.S,62: 


443,140,616 

34,162,128 

305,648 


5,048,844 
926,043 

1,914  S64 


29,729 
52,731,284 
54.371,072 
42,394,599 
15,130.000 
23,674,960 

60,747 


31,412,560 
45.391.133 
38,927.831 
17,296,892 
1,6x9.998 


8,607,088 
3,639,216 
65,214,016 


8,870,512 
'l2!786,284 


I2,l77,3a2 
1,103.312 
7,398,544 

21,313,600 
689,696 


255,938,401 

236,768 

32,815,108 

135,520 


1,705.791 

10,152 

26,764,225 


35,098 
143,248 
90,984 


!,II2,220  722.977,854 
634,592  256,488,960 
5,511,236     513,321,008 


85,398 

4,983 

4,947.383 

22,541,64s 

837,411 

31,283,110 

214,694 

1,825,654 

186,421 

1,316,777 

147,044.486 

475,552 
169,067,504 
67,822,732 


653.893 

139,440 

1,265,376 

44.693,130 

5,790 

4,057,648 

2,539 

2,113,870 

3,787,000 

554,379,444 

526,064 


140.876,075 
80,287.424 
131,523.37' 
114,132,480 
22,585,584 


130,999,871 
73,441.032 
46,810,078 
70,730,086 
2,018,452 
4,968,969 
4,506,336 

!,225is49',264 
15,108,016 
843.552,016 
581.935,308 


258,381,522 
135,105,398 
253,808,240 
110,851.702 
162,230,886 

2.355,920 
7,882,994 
4,.532,ni 
86,141,947 

1,979,367 

14,640,524 

215,852 

5.247,214 

52,946,500 

1,562,049.044 

1,561,816,704 

118,952,288 


,788,116,512 
726,505,065 
202,597,840 
115,412,368 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


United  States  has  ever  known.  In  that  year  everj-  manufacturing  estab- 
lishment in  the  country  was  running  at  full  time,  and  many  night  and 
day.  Not  a. cotton  mill  was  idle.  New  ones  were  built,  afld  old  ones 
extended,  and  yet  we  could  not  supply  our  own  wants,  but  bought 
$30,000,000  worth  of  cotton  goods  abroad.  The  year  was  the  most 
prosperous  the  woolen  industry  has  ever  known,  and  yet  we  had  to  buy 
$38,000,000  worth  of  woolen  goods  abroad.  Our  silk  mills  worked  to 
their  full  capacity,  and  yet  besides  the  home  production  we  bought 
$33,500,000  worth  from  Europe  and  Asia.  Our  iron  furnaces  were  in 
continuous  operation,  yet  we  used  not  onl^'  our  own  product,  but  bought 
$33,000,000  worth  of  the  product  of  foreign  mills. 

Our  leather  establishments  produced  the  largest  amount  of  goods  in 
their  historj-,  yet  we  went  abroad  and  purchased  $14,000,000  worth  more. 
Our  glass  and  glassware  factories  never  knew  a  greater  output,  yet  it 
was  not  equal  to  the  demand,  and  $8,500,000  worth  was  bought  abroad; 
and  so  we  might  go  through  a  list  of  hundreds  of  articles  including 
woodenware,  earthenware  and  pottery,  chemicals,  paper,  tin,  clocks  and 
watches,  furs,  garments,  etc.,  till  we  found  that  in  1892,  the  year 
when  our  mills  were  worked  as  they  had  never  been  worked  before,  they 
were  not  able  to  supply  the  demand,  and  we  bought  nearly  $400,000,000 
worth  abroad.  To  be  sure  some  of  the  products  .of  our  mills  in  1892 
went  abroad.  We  exported  $158,000,000  worth  of  manufactured  products, 
but  much  of  this  was  oils  and  flour,  leaving  considerably  less  than  $100,- 
000,000  worth  of  factory  products.  So  that  we  bought  nearly  $300,000,000 
worth  of  manufactures  in  addition  to  what  we  made. 

Had  the  McKinley  bill  remained  in  force  till  now  we  should  no  doubt 
be  able,  nearly  or  quite,  to  supply  our  wants.  The  new  and  extended 
mills  would  have  taken  men  from  the  farms,  and  labor  would  ha\-e  been 
so  adjusted  as  to  give  the  greatest  advantage  to  all.  The  increased 
number  of  mill  hands  would  have  given  the  farmer  a  greater  and  better 
market,  and  he  would  not  have  to  consider  as  a  competitor,  the  wheat  grower 
of  Russia  or  the  Argentine  Republic.  More  of  our  cotton  would  have  been 
consumed  at  home  to  the  triple  advantage  of  planter  and  manufacturer 
and  consumer  of  the  fabric.  Our  sheep  would  have  increased  in  number, 
and  a  ready  market  for  our  wool  been  found  in  the  increased  production 
of  our  mills.  The  increased  transportation  for  cotton  and  cotton  goods, 
for  wool  and  woolen  goods,  would  have  resulted  in  increased  railroad 
facilities,  creating  a  demand  for  rails  and  othfer  iron  products, 
which  in  time  would  give  added  employment  to  the  miner.  And  so 
we  might  go  through  the  interminable  network  of  our  interde- 
pendent industries,  showing  how  each  strengthens  the  other,  how  each 
added  fabric  of  the  factor}^  makes  a  demand  for  the  product  of  the 
farm,  the  latter  in  turn  demanding  increased  employment  at  the  mill  and 


TRIUMPH  OF  nEMOCRACV  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


After  the  dismal  failure  of  "tariff  reform,"  of  which  we  are  now 
having  experience,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  pursue  the  subject  further. 
The  free  traders  have  proven  themselves  to  be  the  most  incompetent. and 
unreliable  body  that  has  been  entrusted  with  power  since  the  government 
was  formed.  Lacking  the  capacity  to  govern,  incapable  of  comprehending 
the  needs  and  wants  of  the  people,  and  unwilling  to  take  advice  from  the 
leaders  of  the  Republican  party,  who  have  afforded  them  the  greatest 
lessons  in  statesmanship  to  be  found  in  recent  history,  their  public 
career  will  be  short. 

There  are,  however,  several  propositions  which  have  been  urged  with 
such  persistency  that  their  consideration  will  not  be  out  of  order.  They 
assert  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  wage-earners  of  the  United  States 
receive  much  higher  wages  than  those  paid  in  the  old  world,  manufac- 
turing can  be  carried  on  more  cheaply  here  than  there.  This  asser- 
tion is  contrary  to  the  opinions  of  experienced  manufacturers,  not  only  in 
the  United  States,  but  in  Great  Britain  and  Europe. 

Hon.  Joseph  D.  Weeks,  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  an  experienced  statis- 
tician, shows  that  the  cost  of  making  a  box  of  fifty  feet  of  window 
glass  is  $i.o8  in  Belgium,  and  $1.96  in  the  United  States.  Mr.  E.  H. 
Hitchcock,  of  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  after  showing  that  the  Belgians  work 
longer  hours  and  for  much  lower  wages  in  making  plate  glass,  said: 
"In  Europe  the  founder  turns  2600  feet  against  the  American  2000 
feet;  there  is  a  difference  of  over  30  per  cent  right  there.  Take  the 
men  who  ca,st  glass.  The  day's  work  for  this  gang  is  forty-eight  pots 
abroad,  while  in  this  country  a  corresponding  gang  casts  twenty  pots  as 
a  day's  work."  ' 

Mr.  Thomas  W.  Bradley,  of  Walden,  Orange  County,  N.  Y.,  one  of 
the  most  experienced  knife  manufacturers  in  the  United  States,  gave  the 
following  evidence  before  the  'V\^ays  and  Means  Committee  upon  the  rela- 
tive cost  of  pocket  cutlery.'' 

Mr.  Bradley:  It  does  not  relate  at  all  to  edge  tooLs,  as  that  is  utterly  impossible. 
I  wish  to  impress  upon  the  committee  this  fact  in  regard  to  what  we  ask.  It  is 
impossible  for  us  to  enhance  the  value  of  cutlery  to  consumers.  This  exhibit  practi- 
cally illustrates  it  (showing  knife).  This  is  a  one-bladed,  three-and-a-quarter  knife. 
That  knife  cost  a  little  over  fi.oo  per  dozen  to  make — call  it  f i.oo  for  illustration. 
The  labor  cost  of  that  is  a  fraction  over  seventy-nine  cents — call  it  eighty  cents  for 
illustration.  The  material  cost  twenty  cents.  In  Germany  the  labor  for  making  that 
knife  would  be  a  little  less  than  one  reich-mark. 

Mr.  Breckinridge:  How  much  is  it  of  our  money? 

Mr.  Bradley:  About  twenty-two  cents.  Adding  the  cost  of  material,  twenty  cents, 
and  the  duty,  it  would  make  it  about  sixty  cents,  which  would  require  a  duty  of  I4i>< 
per  cent,  on  that  knife  in  regard  to  the  labor  item  alone. 

George  C.  Hatch,  of  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  said:  "I  have  figured  the 
total  cost  of  labor  in  Germany  and  here,  and  as  near  as  I  can  figure  it. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


it  stands,  Germany  fifty -eight  cents,  as  against  $1.66  here  on  a  single 
dozen  knives."'  ' 

.  W.  O.  Whitcomb,  of  Derby,  Conn.,  who  withdrew  from  a  concern  in 
England  and  started  a  similar  business  here,  in  speaking  of  the  cost  of 
metallic  bedsteads,  said:  "The  wages  we  are  paying  our  men  will 
average  $2.00,  $3.00  and  $4.00  per  day.  They  work  on  piece  work,  and 
the  same  men  (on  the  other  side)  would  get  from  $4.50,  $5.00  and  $6.00 
a  week.  They  do  not  do  any  more  work  here  than  on  the  other 
side. ' '  ' 

As  to  the  costs  of  cotton  yarns,  Arnold  P.  Sanford,  of  Fall  River, 
Mass.,  said: 

As  an  illustration  of  the  higher  cost  of  labor  we  have  in  our  midst  in  Fall  River 
a  new  industry,  which  has  recently  been  located  there  for  the  manufacture  of  spool 
cotton.  I  refer  to  the  Kerr  Thread  Company.  In  an  interview  with  their  superin- 
tendent who  has  worked  for  over  twent^'-five  5'ears  in  English  cotton  spinning  mills, 
and  also  their  secretary,  who  has  had  a  large  experience,  they  informed  me  that  the 
labor  in  the  American  mills  costs  them  fully  60  per  cent  more  than  the  same  labor 
would  cost  the  same  mill  in  England.  Their  superintendent  further  informed  me 
that  the  efficiency  of  the  English  laborer  as  compared  to  the  American,  in  his 
opinion,  was  superior.  And  he  said,  emphatically,  that  the  employees  in  his 
American  mills  could  not  do  any  more  labor  than  the  employees  of  his  mills  that 
he  had  run  in  England.  In  fact,  the  English  employees  if  anything,  excelled  them 
in  efficiency  and  superiority  of  work,  so  that  so  far  as  regards  our  industry  the 
laborers  in  our  American  mills  cannot  perform  any  more  work  than  those  in  similar 
mills  in  England.' 

As  to  hosiery  and  underwear  Owen  Csborn  said:  "The  cost  of 
making  hose  in  Germany  as  compared  to  this  country,  is  as  one  mark  to 
$1.00,  and  the  efficiency  of  labor  is  the  same  in  both  countries."  ' 

"The' cost  of  dressing  a  ton  of  flax,"  says  John  Wilson,  of  Newark, 
N.  J.,  "is  $66.66  here,  while  the  cost  in  Great  Britain  is  $36.66,  which 
is  the  highest  wages  paid  abroad."  ^ 

With  reference  to  woolen  goods,  Charles  H.  Clark, -of  Philadelphia, 
Pa.,  said: 

A  man  engaged  in  the  knitting  industry  in  Philadelphia  who  has  just  returned 
from  Chemnitz,  one  of  the  greatest  industrial  towns  on  the  Continent,  told  me  the 
other  day  that  a  person  who  gets  f  2.50  and  jt3  00  a  day  in  a  knitting  mill  in  Philadel- 
phia gets  $2. 50  and  $3.00  a  week  in  Chemnitz,  and  that  a  little  girl  that  gets  seventy-five 
cents  a  day  gets  seventy-five  cents  a  week  in  Chemnitz,  and  that  there  they  work  eleven 
hours  a  da)%  whereas  we  work  ten  hours.  I  should  think  that  the  productive  results  of 
labor  would  be  a  little  more  perhaps  in  Chemnitz  as  they  work  eleven  hours  where  we 
work  ten  hours,  and  -sometimes  work  on  Sundays.  Our  mills  in  Philadelphia  have  a 
great  many  Europeans  in  them,  and  those  Europeans,  I  think,  with  the  same  machinery 
will  do  about  the  same  amount  of  work  as  the  Americans,  and  they  earn  just  the  same 
wages.  5 


!Id.,  p.  471 


I  Id.,  p. 


'  Id.,  p.  753. 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


"  If  you  will  take  the  gross  of  buttons  made  in  Bohemia,"  said  A.  C.  Raymond, 
of  Detroit,  Mich.,  "  and  sell  it  in  America,  for  say,  the  actual  cost  of  seventy-nine  kr. 
per  gross,  you  could  sell  it  in  America  for  about  thirtj'-two  cents  and  take  the  thirty- 
two  cents  of  the  United  States  money,  exchange  it  for  Austrian  money,  and  you  will 
get  more  than  seventy-nine  kr.  of  Austrian  money,  so  5'ou  will  see  that  the  Austrian 
or  Bohemian  manufacturer  can  sell  his  buttons  iu  America  for  less  than  half  what 
the  buttons  cost  to  make  here,  and  still  he  will  make  a  profit,'' ' 

Leopold  Moritz,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  said:  "Bone  btittons  were 
imported  in  1889  for  less  than  we  paid  in  wages  to  make  them.  The 
labor  paid  for  a  great  gross  was  ninety  cents.  Similar  foreign  buttons 
cost  about  eighty-five  cents  to  land  here."  ^ 

Philip  Hagan,  of  Youngstown,  O.,  in   speaking  of  bar  and  wrought 
iron,  .said: 

I  wish  to  tell  you  the  difference  between  the  puddlers  in  England,  when  I  worked 
there,  and  the  prices  now.  I  went  to  work  for  ten  hours  a  day  for  twenty  cents.  When 
I  advanced  to  the  position  of  boiler  in  a  furnace  I  received  ^s.  per  day.  It  was  Ss. 
and  6d.  in  1869.  I  received  there  for  puddling  |i.20  or  55.  for  3000  weight;  and  here  I 
receive  fe.So  for  2750  weight.  That  is  the  present  price.  W^ges  iu  Belgium  are  about 
seventy-five  cents  a  day.  We  start  on  Monday  morning  and  stop  the  furnace  on 
Saturday  night  to  clean  it ;  but  in  Belgium  they  never  stop  as  long  as  the  furnace 
holds  out.' 

The  foregoing  are  taken  from  the  evidence  of  experienced  manufac- 
turers, given  before  recent  hearings  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
of  Congress.  By  the  adoption  of  free  trade  we  should  be  thrown 
into  competition  with  the  38,000,000  of  the  United  Kingdom  and 
nearly  300,000,000  of  Europe,  whose  artisans,  after  centuries  of 
training,  have  been  born  and  bred  to  every  productive  handicraft  and 
attained  a  high  degree  of  skill,  taste  and  ingenuity  in  every  department  of 
manufacturing,  and  who  are  using  the  very  best  machinery, the  most  perfect 
devices  and  all  of  the  modern  appliances.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that 
during  the  past  thirty  years  European  manufacturers  have  thrown  aside 
their  old  machiner}',  refitted  and  equipped  their  plants  with  the  most 
perfect  machinery  in  the  world  and  that  they  have  no  lack  of  capital  at 
their  command.  With  production  carried  on  under  these  conditions,  with 
efficient  and  skilled  artisans  obtainable  at  one-half  the  labor  cost  of  those 
in  the  United  States,  it  is  utter  nonsense  for  free  trade  politicians  and 
theoretical  writers  to  attempt  to  impose  upon  the  American  people  by 
claiming  that  under  these  circumstances  goods  can  be  made  cheaper  in 
America  than  abroad. 

An  examination  of  the  evidence  of  British  manufacturers  given 
before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Depression  of  Trade  and  Industry, 
quoted  in  preceding  chapters,  shows  that  the  chief  complaint  in  England 
against  the  Continent  is  because  of  the  longer  hours  and  lower  wages 
which    prevail    there.      It    is   fully   demonstrated    that    the    ' '  superior 

1  Tariff  Hearing,  1893,  p.  1096.       -  Id.,  p.  1:19.       •>  Id.,  p.  341. 


/mpossi- 
bility  of 
successful 
compEtt- 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


efficienc}-' '  of  British  artisans  has  not  saved  Great  Britain  from  an  iinnida- 
tion  of  Continental  goods.  If  the  Continent  is  able  to  supplant  and 
destroy  industries  in  Great  Britain  as  it  is  certainly  doing,  with  lower 
wages  and  longer  hours,  how  then  would  it  be  possible  for  the  United 
States  to  withstand  the  combined  Continental  and  British  competition 
when  the  wages  paid  to  its  artisans  are  still  higher  than  those  paid  in  the 
United  Kingdom  ? 

The  percentage  of  labor  cost  of  commodities  in  the  United  States  is 
often  compared  with  the  percentage  of  labor  cost  of  similar  commodities 
in  the  old  world,  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  appear  that  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  our'wage  rate  per  week  is  much  higher,  still  the  labor 
cost  is  no  greater  than  in  Europe  and  England.  To  illustrate  this  fallacy 
let  us  assume  that  it  costs  $1. GO  to  produce  a  particular  article  in  the  United 
States,  and  that  the  labor  cost  in  the  last  finishing  process  is  50  per 
cent,  or  fifty  cents,  and  that  the  same  article  can  be  produced  in  England 
for  one-half  the  sum,  or  fifty  cents,  the  labor  co.st  there  of  the  last  finished 
process  being  also  50  per  cent  of  the  total  cost,  which  would  be  twenty- 
five  cents.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  percentage  may  be  the  same  in  both 
countries  and  the  labor  cost  still  be  twice  as  great  in  the  United  States 
as  in  England.  The  fallacy  of  this  oft-repeated  error  consists  in  a 
failure  to  estimate  the  percentage  of  labor  cost  in  the  two  countries 
upon  a  common  basis  of  production.  In  speaking  of  the  attempt  to 
make  such  comparisons  based  upon  the  percentage  of  labor  cost  in  the 
final  process  of  manufacturing  the  Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright  said:  "  There 
can  be  no  comparison  made  as  between  the  labor  cost  of  articles  in  one  coun- 
try and  the  labor  cost  in  another,  and  the  attempt  should  not  be  made. ' ' 

The  fact  brought  out  concerning  relative  labor  cost  might  be  illustrated 
by  authorities  bearing  on  the  whole  field  of  our  productive  industries.  It 
is  true  of  cotton  goods,  woolen  goods,  productions  of  iron  and  steel,  as' well 
as  every  other.  Indisputable  evidence  shows  that  the  high  wage  rate  en- 
joyed by  American  over  foreign  labor  extends  to  all  competing  industries. 

The  next  question,  however,  which  arises,  is  the  relative  proportion 
or  share  of  our  products  which  goes  to  labor  and  capital  respectively. 
Senator  Roger  Q.  Mills,  in  his  speech  on  the  Wilson  bill,  said: 

W)iile  on  the  subject,  I  want  some  one  to  explain  to  me,  if  this  tax  is  for  the 
laborer's  beneBt  and  not  for  the  manufacturer's,  how  is  it  that  the  laborer  never  gets 
the  benefit  of  any  of  it  ?  How  is  it  that  the  bounty  voted  by  Congress  never  gets 
further  than  the  mouth  of  the  manufacturer?  How  is  it  that  the  tariff  puts  a  tax  of 
I13.44  on  every  ton  of  steel  rails,  and  yet  the  laborer  gets  less  than  jt3.  For  every 
ton  of  pig  iron  Congress  votes  to  the  laborer  f6  72,  but  he  never  gets  more  than  f  1.50. 
For  every  Sioo  worth  of  cutlery  the  tariff  is  jpSo,  but  he  only  gets  I44. 

As  agaiu.st  such  bold  and  misleading  assertions  we  have  abundant 
proof  to  show  that  about  90  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  ever>-  commodity 
goes  to  reward  the  labor  which  produced  it. 


TRIOIPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 

Upon  this  proposition  we  have  the  advantage  of  an  ofEeial  investiga- 
tion recently  conducted  by  the  Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright,  with  the  assistance 
of  able  statisticians,  reported  in  the  sixth  and  seventh  annual  reports  of  the 
Department  of  Labor, covering  1 18  separate  industries  and  showing  the  rela- 
tive labor  cost  in  a  great  many  commodities.  The  following  figures  compiled 
from  the  sixth  annual  report  of  the  Commission  of  L,abor,  shows  that  in  the 
production  of  one  ton  of  pig-iron  over  90  per  cent  of  the  cost  is  labor: 

Average  Cost  of  One  Ton  (2000  Pounds)   Bituminous  Co.m,  in  Ninety-nine 
est.\blishments  in  the  united  states. 

Total  Cost.  Total  Labor  Cost. 

Labor  direct |o.933  |o.933 

Officials  and  clerks  (labor), 042  .042 

Timber  (90  per  cent  labor), 026  .0234 

Other  supplies  and  repairs  {90  per  cent  labor),  .      .050  .45 

Taxes 007 

$1,058  fi.0434 

To  which  should  be  added  interest,  insurance, 
depreciation  of  value  of  plant,  and  roj^alties 
paid  to  owners  of  the  soil, 06 

$i.iiS 
Total  labor  cost  93.3  per  cent. 
Average  Cost  of  One  Ton  of  Coke  (2000  Pounds)  in  Thirty  Establish- 
ments IN  THE  United  States. 

Total  Cost.        Total  Labor  Cost. 

Coal  for  coking  (93-3  per  cent  labor), |i-2i9  fi.i37 

Labor  direct, 357  -357 

Officials  and  clerks  (labor), 028  .028 

Supplies  and  repairs  (90  per  cent  labor),      .    .    .      .058  .0522 

Taxes oo5 

fi.667  |i-5742 
To  which  must  be  added  interest,  insurance  and 

depreciation  of  value  of  plant, 007 

I1.674 
Total  labor  cost,  94  per  cent. 

Average  Cost  of  One  Ton  (2240  Pounds)  of  Iron  Ore  in  Seventy-two 
Establishments  in  the  United  States. 

Total  Cost.        Total  Labor  Cost. 

Labor  direct I1.039  |i-039 

Officials  and  clerks  (labor), 049  .049 

Supplies  and  repairs  (90  per  cent  labor) 359  .3231 

Taxes - 035 

$1,482  $1.4111 

To  which  must  be  added  interest,  insiu-ance,  de- 
preciation of  value  of  plant  and  royalty  paid 
to  owners  of  land, 17 

$1,652 
Labor  cost  S5.4  per  cent. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


Average  Cost  of  One   Ton  (2240  Pounds)  of   Limestone  in   Six  Establish- 
ments IN  THE  United  States. 

Total  Cost.  Total  Labor  Cost. 

Labor  direct, $0,307  I0.307 

Officials  and  clerks  (labor) 022  .022 

Supplies  and  repairs  (90  per  cent  labor),      .    .    .      .041  .037 

Taxes, 007 

jto.3-7  fo.366 

To  which  must  be  added  for  royalty  to  owners  of 
soil, 053 


I0.430 


Total  labor  cost  85  per  cent. 


Cost  of  Conversion  of  3990   Pounds   of  Coke,  5810  Pounds   Iron  Ore   and 
452S  Pounds  of  Limestone  Into  2240  (One  Ton)  Pounds  of  Pig  Iron. 

Total  Cost.  Total  Labor  Cost. 

Labor  direct |i.595  |i-595 

Officials  and  clerks  (labor), 175  .175 

Supplies  and  repairs  and  taxes,  90  per  cent  labor,      .530  .477 


Total  labor  cost,  97.6  per  cent. 


Cost  of  Ton  (2240  Pounds)  of  Pig  Iron 

Material. 


$2,300 


lASED  ON  Foregoing  Cost  of 


Total  Cost, 
5810 pounds  of  iron  ore  (85.4  per  cent  labor),     .  I4.2S 
4528  pounds  of  limestone  (85  per  cent  labor),  .887' 

3990  pounds  of  coke  (94  per  cent  labor),  .    .    .    .    2.97 
Transportation  of  above  (90  per  cent  labor),  .    .     1.697 
Conversion  of  above  into  2240  pounds  of  pig  iron 
(97.6  per  cent  labor),  2.30 


Total  Labor 

$3-66 

•754 

2.792 

1-567 

2.247 


•  134 


Total  labor  cost  90.8  per  cent. 


In  the  same  way  it  could  be  shown  that  over  90  per  cent  of  the 
cost  of  a  ton  of  steel  rails  or  bar  iron,  or  any  product  of  iron  and  steel,  is 
labor.  We  also  have  the  opinion  of  the  Hon.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  based  on 
his  experience  as  a  miner  and  manufacturer  of  iron.     In   1848  he  said: 

The  value  of  every  manufacture  is  made  up  entirely  of  the  wages  paid  to  prodm  r 
it.  Coal  and  iron  in  the  mines  cost  nothing.  They  are  the  free  gifts  of  God.  P.ut 
they  are  excavated  by  the  pick  and  shovel  of  the  workman  ;  by  him  they  an- 
wheeled,  carted,  boarded  to  market ;  by  the  workmen  they  are  carried  to  mill ;  by  tho 
workman  the  funiace  is  heated  and  charged  ;  by  him  the  iron  is  puddled,  rolled,  put 
up  for  the  market,  carried  thither  and  sold.  It  is  labor,  labor,  labor  that  constitiUis 
every  addition  to  the  value  of  the  article,  and  it  is  the  man  who  bestows  that  labor 
who  should  enjoy  the  fruits  thereof. 


TRIUMPH  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


This,  of  course,  was  a  general  statement,  but  Mr.  Hewitt  has  since 
stated  that  the  labor  cost  of  all  iron  products  is  over  90  per  cent. 
John  Roach,  the  great  ship  builder,  stated  that  careful  estimates  and 
experience  show  that  the  value  of  iron,  beginning  to  estimate  it  at  the 
mine,  is  composed  of  wages  to  the  extent  of  95  per  cent  on  the  average. 

Of  cotton  goods  Edward  Atkinson  said: 

If  the  subject  is  analyzed,  first,  as  a  whole,  and,  second,  in  each  department,  it 
will  appear  that  at  the  present  time  the  proportion  of  profit  which  can  be  set  aside 
from  the  sale  of  coarse  cotton  goods  sufficient  to  cover  profits  in  all  the  various  depart- 
ments of  the  work,  is  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  wholesale  market  value  of  the  pro- 
duct, aiid  go  per  cent  is  the  absolute  share  of  the  laborers  ivho  do  the  work  both  in 
respect  to  materials  used  and  to  the  finished  product} 

In  the  seventh  annual  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  -  we  find 
the  cost  of  production  of  window  glass  in  thirty-seven  establishments, 
the  figures  for  the  first  being  as  follows,  the  second  column  of  figures 
being  the  writer's: 

Total  cost  of  Total  labor 

production.  cost. 

Materials  (90  per  cent  labor) $12,486  lit.237 

Direct  labor 101.439  ioi-439 

Officials  and  clerks  (labor), 5-300  5-300 

Supplies  and  repairs  (90  per  cent  labor),  .    .    .          2.098  1.88S 

Fuel  (90  per  cent  labor) 12.541  11.287 

Taxes 1.095 

$i34-959  1131-151 

Per  cent  labor  cost  97. 

The  same  principle,  if  extended  to  transportation,  would  measurably 
hold  good.  The  largest  item  of  cost  in  constructing  and  operating  rail- 
roads is  that  which  goes  into  the  pockets  of  the  men  who  do  the  work. 
The  labor  cost  of  every  commodity,  which  begins  with  the  first  human 
-effort  expended  upon  the  raw  material,  is  repeated  over  and  over  again, 
and  follows  the  commodity  through  all  the  processes  of  production  and 
distribution  until  it  reaches  the  consumer.  This  is  also  true  of  the 
farm  products,  and  everj-  article  of  necessity  and  luxury.  This  being 
true,  the  importance  of  augmenting  the  $16,000,000,000  of  products  of 
our  mines,  factories  and  farms,  becomes  apparent.  As  Abram  S.  Hewitt 
said,  "it  is  labor,  labor,  labor." 

What  share  goes  to  capital  ?  While  it  is  true  that  enormous 
fortunes  have  been  made  by  the  Goulds,  Vanderbilts,  Rockefellers  and 
others  in  railroad  speculation,  in  mining  gold,  silver,  iron  and  coal,  in 
controlling  oil  fields,  and  in  a  great  variety  of  enterprises  connected  with 
the  marvelous  development  of  our  country  which  has  taken  place  during 
the  last  third  of  a  century ;  yet  the  profits  of  those  engaged  in  industries 
directly  affected  by  a  protective  tariff  have  only  been  fair  and  reasonable. 

'  Distribution  of  Products,  p.  122.       '^Vo\.  I.,  p.  228. 
49 


Labor  the 
chiefele- 

"coft'o/pro- 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


In  fact  out  of  seventy  multi-millionaires  named  by  a  free  trade  writer, 
only  four  can  be  said  to  have  amassed  their  wealth  in  protected 
industries. 

Official  investigations  which  have  been  made  of  the  profits  of  manu- 
facturers in  the  State  of  Massachusetts  and  other  New  England  States, 
disf)rove  the  charges  which  have  been  industriously  circulated  by  the 
allies  of  the  Cobden  Club  against  our  manufacturers.  The  following 
is  from  the  Home  Market  Bulletin  of  Boston  for  August,  1891 : 

One  of  the  most  important  documents  ever  issued  by  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of 
Statistics  of  Labor  is  Part  IV  of  the  report  for  iSSo,  which  came  out  July  21,  1S9T. 
It  deals  with  "Net  profits  in  manufacturing  industries,"  and  though  it  is  bulky — 
(630  pages) — the  deductions  are  coucisely  stated  by  Hon.  Horace  G.  Wadlin,  chief  of 
the  bureau,  in  the  introduction.     We  will  summarize  the  most  important. 

He  obtained  reports  from  23,431  establishments,  covering  64  different  industries 
and  representing  75.45  per  cent  of  the  capital  and  70  per  cent  of  the  products  of 
Massachusetts  factories.  Only  10,013  reported  as  to  net  profits,  and  of  this  number 
9251  made  a  profit. 

A  Massachusetts  manufacturer,  on  the  average,  out  of  every  Jioo  invested  puts 
nearh-  J24  into  land,  buildings  and  fixtures;  1123  into  machinery,  implements  and 
tools;  has  about  ^35  in  cash  for  working  capital,  and  borrows  |i8  more  to  supplement 
his  cash  capital.  He  has  ^47  out  of  every  ^100  invested  in  his  plant,  and  with  S53  in 
cash  or  borrowed  money  he  carries  on  his  business.  The  net  profit  was  arrived  at  by 
the  following  deductions,  determined  upon  after  careful  consideration: 

Interest  on  cash  and  credit  capital,  5  per  cent;  depreciation  in  the  value  of 
machiner\-,  implements  and  tools,  10  per  cent;  allowance  for  selling  expenses,  losses 
and  bad  debts,  5  per  cent. 

R.\TES  OF  Profit. 

After  these  deductions  were  made,  58  out  of  64  industries  exhibited  a  net  profit. 
The  excess  of  selling  price  aljove  cost  of  production  amounts,  on  the  average,  to 
fi2.95  in  each  $100  worth  of  manufactured  product.  If  from  this  $12. 95  excess  are 
deducted  the  following:  I2.15  for  interest,  Si. 90  for  depreciation  of  machiner}-.  imple- 
ments and  tools,  and  I5  for  selling  expenses  and  to  make  up  the  losses  from  bad  debts, 
there  will  then  remain  a  net  profit  of  I3.90,  which  is  equivalent  to  4. S3  per  cent  on  the 
amount  of  capital  invested,  or  an  annual  return  of  ^4.83  upon  each  ;tioo  of  invested 
capital. 

The  results  on  the  percentage  basis,  says  Mr.  Wadlin,  for  net  profit,  show  that  in 
few  industries,  if  au)%  can  the  profits  be  called  exorbitant,  all  things  considered:  for 
we  find  the  largest  percentages  of  net  profit  in  the  small  industries,  while  large  indus- 
tries involve  small  profits  and  sometimes  large  losses.  As  to  the  general  result  for  all 
industries,  no  one,  he  thinks,   will   maintain  that  the   percentage  of  net  profit  is 


The  facts  contained  in  the  official  report  referred  to  have  been  con- 
firmed by  Edward  Atkinson,  General  Draper  and  other  statisticians  who 
are  competent  to  speak  on  the  subject. 

There  is  free  competition  in  the  investment  of  capital.  The  profits 
on  capital  in  all  countries  are  largely  fixed  by  international  competition. 
The  surplus  of  a  nation  flows  into  those  countries  where  the  highest  rate 


TEIU-VPII  OF  DEilOCEACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


of  interest  and  profits  can  be  obtained.  Citizens  of  the  United  States 
desirous  of  borrowing  large  sums  of  money  go  to  England  or  the  Conti- 
nent of  Europe,  where  they  can  obtain  it  at  the  lowest  rate.  Capital  has 
become  so  abundant  that  the  competition  between  lenders  and  the 
struggle  on  the  part  of  borrowers  tend  to  adjust  interest  and  profits  to 
a  common  level.  Means  of  communication  have  become  so  perfected  and 
the  securit}'  afforded  capital  through  permanently  established  govern- 
ments and  wise  laws  has  become  so  absolute,  that  capital  seeks  investment 
in  all  countries  with  more  freedom  and  greater  safety  than  ever  before. 
So  long  as  this  condition  exists,  it  is  sheer  nonsense  to  talk  about 
"robber  barons"  or  "monopolists"  in  any  department  of  productive 
industrj^  that  is  open  to  the  investment  of  capital  by  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  Men  will  not  stand  idly  by  and  see  their  neighbors 
amassing  fortunes  in  any  industry  which  is  equally  open  to  them,  so  long 
as  money  can  be  borrowed  in  any  part  of  the  world,  at  reasonable  rates 
of  interest. 

If  our  cotton  manufactories  were  making  profits  above  this  normal 
level,  capital  would  at  once  be  invested  in  the  construction  of  cotton 
mills,  competition  increased  and  profits  reduced.  This  is  true  of  every 
branch  of  manufacturing  in  the  United  States.  Cases  can  be  cited 
in  which  manufacturers  have  made  fortunes  which  are  greatly  in 
excess  of  this  rate ;  but  when  the  facts  are  ascertained,  these  will  be  found 
to  be  exceptions  arising  from  the  holding  of  patents  for  new  inven- 
tions or  those  in  which  an  industry  promoted  by  able  and  sagacious 
men,  has  suddenly  developed  before  the  profits  made  are  generally 
known.  Our  industries  have  now  nearly  all  passed  through  the 
speculative  stage  and  have  become  adjusted  to  conditions  which  do  not 
admit  of  excessive  profits.  Capital  is  becoming  so  abundant,  and  the 
number  of  bright,  active  business  men  so  great,  that  neither  trusts  nor 
combinations  can  effectually  resist  the  competition  of  capital  w'hich  flows 
into  every  productive  industry  as  soon  as  it  is  discovered  that  large  profits 
are  being  made.  The  operation  of  this  law  of  competition  in  capital  is 
found  in  the  steady  decline  in  prices  which  has  taken  place. 

That  by  reason  of  the  high  wage  rate  which  prevails  in  the  United 
States,  it  costs  more  to  produce  commodities  here  than  it  does  to  make 
similar  articles  by  the  lower  paid  labor  of  Europe,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
question.  Nor  can  we  doubt  that  our  tariff  policy  maintains  this  high 
wage  rate,  and  in  this  way  increases  the  cost  of  production  over  what  it 
would  be  if  the  wages  of  our  laborers  were  reduced  under  free  trade.  If 
this  constitutes  a  tax  on  consumers,  then  the  tariff  is  a  tax. 

But  the  free  trader  says  that  the  dut\-  is  added  to  the  home  msf  of 
production,  and  hence  each  consumer  is  compelled  to  pay  an  amount  equal 
to  the  fiome  cosf  price,  based  upon  our  wage  rate  with  the  duty  added 
Although  the  contention  is  not  so  definitely  stated,  yet  the  free  trader 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


tends  to  be  so  understood.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  competition 
among  our  own  producers  keeps  the  price  of  commodities  down  to  the 
cost  of  production,  based  upon  our  wage  rate  and  fair  profits  to  manufac- 
turers, entirely  regardless  of  the  rate  of  duty  which  may  exist.  This  is 
proven  by  the  steady  decline  in  prices  which  has  taken  place  since  i860. 
It  is  also  shown  by  comparing  the  retail  price  of  many  commodities  with  the 
tariff.  The  following  table  was  prepared  by  Hon.  John  Ford,  while  he 
was  editor  of  the  American  Economist,  from  actual  purchases  made  by  him 
in  the  retail  stores  of  New  York  City,  in  1892.  It  was  published  in  the 
American  Economist  of  that  year.  While  this  list  might  be  greatly 
extended,  it  sufficiently  disproves  the  free  trade  assumption : 

Articles.                                      Duty.  Price. 

Wire  nails,      fo.02  per  lb.  fo.oiy'j.'j  per  lb. 

Hand-saw  files 75  per  doz.  .48  per  doz. 

Salt,      ...        oSsPerbbl.  .2Sperbbl. 

Bunting 22  per  yd.  .20  per  yd. 

Lead  pencils, 60  per  gross  .45  per  gross 

Chewing  tobacco,  2  oz.pkg.,  .    .      .06  per  pkg.  .05  per  pkg. 

Playing  cards, .    .       .50  per  pack  .19  per  pack 

Tissue  paper 65  .58 

Calico,      05  per  yfl-  -iU  (2  5  per  yd. 

Cotton  and  woolen  cballies,  .    .      .og'i  per  yd.  .07  per  yd. 

Shirting  prints, 05  per  yd.  .05  per  yd. 

Six-pound  wool  blankets,  .    .    .    1.3S  each  1.32  each 

Carpets 64  sq.  yd.  .50  sq.  yd. 

Cheviots 65  sq.  yd.  .42  sq.  yd. 

Ladies' wool  dress  goods,   .    .    .      .20/^^5  yd.  ^i6,%%  yd. 

Smyrna  rugs,      2. So  each  2.49  each 

Calico  aprons, 05  per  3d.  .04"<  per  j-d. 

Workingmen's  shirts, 05  each  .05  each 

Flannel  shirt, 80  each  .69  each 

Boys'  pants, 43  each  -2/  each 

Cotton  handkerchief, 05  per  yd.  .04  per  yd. 

Moquette  rug 1.05  each  i.oo  each 

Blanket 95  each  .90  each 

Cloak  (cheap), 5.13  each  3.9S  each 

Comfortable,  cotton  wool,      .    .     1.31  each  i.oo  each 

Workingmen's  trousers,     ...      .92  each  .89  each 

Boys'  suit 1.24  each  1.20  each 

Girls' dress,  cotton  and  wool,   .     1.79  each  1.80  each 

Working  girls'  dress,      ....    4.13  each  3. 98  each 

While  this  principle  holds  good  with  articles  produced  in  our  own 
country,  the  prices  of  which  are  influenced  by  home  competition,  it 
is  not  true  of  those  commodities  which  we  are  necessarily  compelled  to  buy 
abroad.  A  duty  on  coffee,  tea  or  sugar  is  added  to  the  price  which  the 
consumer  is  compelled  to  pay.  The  protectionist.s,  however,  admit  .such 
commodities  free  of  duty.  It  is  .sometimes  .suggested  that  if  calico  co.sts 
five  cents  a  yard  in  the  United  States,  and  only  three  cents  a  yard  in 


TEIV^IPR  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  FREE  TRADE. 


England,  a  dut}-  of  five  cents  a  yard  is  two  cents  higher  than  there 
is  any  necessity  for.  While  this  may  be  true,  if  the  excess  is  not  added 
to  the  cost  price  in  the  United  States,  it  harms  no  one.  But  this  is  not 
the  point  of  contention.  Protectionists  do  not  favor  the  maintenance  of 
duties  higher  than  the  conditions  of  competition  require.  The  successive 
revisions  of  tariffs  made  by  protectionists  since  i860  have  reduced  duties 
and  adjusted  them  to  new  conditions.  But  the  controversy  does  not  arise 
over  such  duties.  While  the  protectionists  are  only  attempting  to  main- 
tain duties  high  enough  to  afford  adequate  protection  to  labor  and  capital, 
the  "tariff  reformers"  are  seeking  to  reduce  the  duties  below  that  point, 
in  order  that  the  consumers  of  the  United  States  may  be  able  to  buy  manu- 
factures in  those  countries  where  the}'  can  be  made  and  purchased  the 
cheapest,  regardless  of  the  effect  which  such  purchases  will  have  upon  our 
domestic  industries. 

In  concluding  this  brief  review  of  the  triumph  of  free  trade  it  is 
unnecessar}-  to  attempt -to  point  out  the  many  lessons  which  it  teaches. 
Under  the  plea  of  helping  the  farmer,  under  the  claim  that  consumers 
would  be  benefited;  under  the  pretence  that  our  foreign  trade  would  be 
extended,  the  manufacturing  industries  were  stricken  down.  The 
calamities  which  have  befallen  the  people  should  ever  stand  as  a  warning 
against  a  repetition  of  the  mistake  which  the  American  people  made  in 
taking  advice  from  visionary  and  sham  reformers.  It  has  been  demon- 
strated that  the  farmer  cannot  destroy  the  manufacturer  without  inflicting 
an  injury  upon  himself.  The  laborer  cannot  ruin  the  business  of  his 
employer  without  losing  his  job.  It  proves  that  injury  cannot  befall 
any  one  great  branch  of  production  without  bringing  disaster  to  every 
other  line  of  industry  within  the  borders  of  our  country.  The  industrial 
life  of  the  nation  is  like  a  great  temple  resting  on  pillars,  no  one  of  which 
can  be  torn  out  without  bringing  the  whole  structure  down  on  the  heads 
of  all.  It  is  the  dependence  of  one  industry  upon  another  which  binds 
them  all  together  and  makes  protection  necessary  for  all,  as  Roscoe  Conk- 
ling  said  in  his  great  speech  in  New  York,  September  17,  1880:  "From 
the  wheat  fields  of  ^Minnesota  through  the  pastures  of  Texas  there  is  not 
an  acre  whose  fertility  does  not  benefit  New  York,  nor  could  she  profit  bj' 
the  misfortune  or  poverty  of  a  hamlet  in  all  our  borders." 


CHAPTER  VII. 
Economic  Discussion. 

Nations  pay  little  regard  to  the  rules  and  maxims  calculated  in  their  ver}-  nature 
to  run  counter  to  the  necessities  of  society. — Alexander  Hamilton,  The  Federalist, 
No.  25. 

Perhaps  the  best  argument  I  can  make  for  protection  is  to  state  what  it  is  and  the 
principles  on  which  it  is  founded. 

Man  derives  his  greatest  power  from  his  association  with  other  men,  his  union 
with  his  fellows.  Whoever  considers  the  human  being  as  a  creature  alone,  'hy  himself, 
isolated  and  separated,  and  tries  to  comprehend  mankind  by  mathematically  adding 
these  atoms  together,  has  utterly  failed  to  comprehend  the  human  race  and  its  tremen- 
dous mission.  Sixty  millions  even  of  such  creatures  without  association  are  only  so 
many  beasts  that  perish.  But  sixty  millions  of  men  welded  together  by  national 
brotherhood,  each  supporting,  sustaining,  and  buttressing  the  other,  are  the  sure  con- 
querors of  all  those  mighty  powers  of  nature  which  alone  constitute  the  wealth  of  this 
world.  The  great  blunder  of  the  Herr  profes.sor  of  political  economy  is  that  he 
treats  human  beings  as  if  every  man  were  so  many  foot-pounds,  such  and  such  a  frac- 
tion of  a  horse-power.     All  the  soul  of  man  he  leaves  out. 

Think  for  a  moment  of  the  foundation  principles  involved  in  this  question,  which 
I  now  ask.  Where  does  wealth  come  from  ?  It  conies  from  the  power  of  man  to  let 
loose  and  yet  guide  those  elemental  forces  the  energy  of  which  is  infinite.  It  comes 
from  the  power  of  man  to  force  the  earth  to  give  her  increase,  to  hold  in  the  bellying 
sail  the  passing  breeze,  to  harness  the  tumliling  waterfall,  to  dem  up  the  great  rivers, 
to  put  bits  in  the  teeth  of  the  lightning.  Foot-pounds  and  fractions  of  a  horse-power 
will  never  do  this.  It  takes  brains  and  the  union  of  foot-pounds  and  fractions  of  a 
horse-power  working  harmoniously  together. 

To  gra.sp  the  full  powers  of  nature,  to  reap  the  richest  wealth  of  the  world,  we 
must  utilize  the  full  power  of  man,  not  merely  tnuscles  and  brains,  but  those  intan- 
gible qualities  which  we  call  energy,  vigor,  ambition,  confidence  and  courage.  Have 
you  never  remarked  the  wonderflil  difference  between  a  sleepy  country  village,  lying 
lazily  alongside  an  unused  waterfall,  where  more  than  half  the  energy  of  the  people 
was  lost  for  lack  of  the  kind  of  work  they  wanted  to  do  ;  where,  whenever  three  men 
met  together  in'theroad,  the  rest  looked  out  of  the  vrindows,  idly  wondering  what  the 
riot  was  about,  and  that  same  village  after  the  banks  were  lined  with  workshops  and 
the  air  was  noisy  with  the  whir  of  the  spindles,  and  every  man  was  so  eager  to  work, 
that  there  never  seemed  hours  enough  in  the  day  to  tear  from  the  powers  of  nature 
their  imprisoned  richness?  If  you  have,  you  have  also  seen  the  contrast  between 
men  left  to  themselves,  so  many  foot-pounds  and  fractions  of  a  horse-power,  and  men 
incited  by  hope,  spurred  on  by  ambition,  and  lighted  on  their  way  by  the  confidence 
of  success. 

For  a  nation  to  get  out  of  itself  or  out  of  the  earth  all  the  wealth  there  is  in  both 
it  is  not  necessary  for  the  nation  to  buy  cheap  or  sell  dear.  That  concerns  individuals 
alone.  What  concerns  the  nation  is  how  to  utilize  all  the  work  there  is  in  man,  both 
of  muscle  and  brain,  of  body  and  of  soul,  in  the  great  enterprise  of  setting  in  motion 
the  ever-gratuitous  forces  of  nature.  How  .shall  you  get  out  of  the  people  of  a  nation 
(774) 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


their  tull  powers  ?  Right  here  is  precisely  the  dividing  line.  The  let-alone  school  say 
leave  individual  man  to  his  own  devices.  The  protectionist  school  say  let  us  stimulate 
combined  and  aggregated  man,  to  united  endeavor. — Speech  of  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  May  ig,  iS&S. 

The  Mercantile  System. 
The  economic  policy  pursued  by  nations  prior  to  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury was  known  as  the  Mercantile  System.  From  the  history  of  nations 
given  in  the  preceding  chapters  of  this  work,  it  has  been  shown  that  it 
embraced  a  mixture  of  ordinances  and  decrees  for  the  accomplishment  of 
two  purposes:  (i)  the  development  of  domestic  industries;  (2)  the  raising 
of  revenues  for  the  support  of  the  governments.  To  accomplish  these 
ends,  subsidies,  bounties,  premiums,  duties  on  imports  and  exports  were 
resorted  to,  as  well  as  special  privileges  (or  monopolies),  which  were 
granted  to  individuals,  both  to  induce  them  to  engage  in  and  carry  on 
industries,  and  as  a  means  of  raising  revenues.  It  is  from  these  licenses 
granted  to  favored  individuals,  which  excluded  all  others  from  partici- 
pating in  a  particular  trade  or  industry,  that  the  claim  originated  that 
protection  builds  up  monopolies.  While  it  is  true  that  monopolies  were 
increased  and  fostered  under  the  Mercantile  System  the  x;harge  is 
unfounded  when  applied  to  protection  as  now  advocated  and  practiced. 
The  legal  definition  of  monopoly,  as  given  by  the  Standard  Dictionary,  is 
as  follows: 

An  exclusive  license  from  the  government  for  buying,  selling,  making  or  using 
anything;  called  also  artificial  monopoly.  From  this  sense  are  excepted  patent  and 
copyright  laws,  for  the  encouragement  of  art  and  letters,  and  restrictions  for  the  bene- 
fits of  the  community  on  the  sale  of  liquor. 

Hence  it  follows,  that  in  earlier  years  when  the  exclusive  privilege 
was  given  to  the  East  India  Company  to  engage  in  the  trade  with  India ; 
when  the  sole  right  was  conferred  upon  an  individual  to  carry  on  the 
business  of  smelting  iron  by  the  use  of  pit  coal ;  when  the  French  Gov- 
ernment, to  induce  a  Hollander  to  establish  the  woolen  industry  in 
France,  gave  him  the  exclusive  rights  to  carry  on  the  business  and  con- 
trol the  market  in  certain  districts,  monopolies  were  created.  That  this 
policy,  which  was  first  introdticed  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  trade 
and  industry,  was  afterwards  grossly  abused  by  being  used  as  a  means 
of  enriching  the  king,  has  been  pointed  out.  It  should  be  noted  thai  as 
capital  increased  and  the  commercial  classes  became  more  numerous  and 
the  necessity  of  resorting  to  such  extreme  measures  as  an  inducement  to 
the  establishment  of  industries  and  commerce,  passed  away,  the  mercan- 
tilists abandoned  the  granting  of  monopolies,  the  extinction  of  which  has 
not  been  due  to  the  influence  of  free  trade  writers,  but  to  changed  condi- 
tions. Understanding  what  constitutes  a  monopoly,  we  must  admit  that 
the  policy  of  protection,  which  gives  no  exclusive  privilege  to  particular 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


False  bast, 
of  modern 
free  trade 


individuals  and  excludes  no  citizen  from  availing  himself  of  its  advan- 
tages, should  not  be  classed  as  favoring  or  promoting  monopolies.  The  use 
which  the  advocates  of  free  trade  are  making  of  this  expression,  is  not 
justified,  but  is  simply  the  misapplication  of  the  term  for  the  purpose  of 
arousing  prejudice. 

In  treating  of  the  Mercantilists  it  is  common  among  free  track- 
writers  to  attempt  to  convey  the  idea  that  their  main  purpose  was  to 
encourage  exports  and  discourage  imports  for  the  sole  purpose  of  creating 
a  favorable  balance  of  trade,  and  thereby  to  keep  bullion  and  specie  in 
the  country,  under  the  mistaken  notion  that  the  precious  metals  alone 
constitute  wealth.  The  most  important  end  sought  to  be  secured  by  the 
Mercantilists  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  was,  to 
encourage  the  development  of  domestic  manufactories;  for  this  purpose 
imports  were  restricted  to  prevent  ruinous  competition  from  foreign 
rivals. 

Exports  were  often  prohibited  to  aid  in  the  development  of  home 
industries.  For  instance,  Great  Britain  prohibited  the  export  of  wool 
in  order  to  force  its  consumption  in  domestic  vi'oolen  factories,  while  at 
the  same  time,  imports  of  woolen  goods  were  prohibited  and  the  people 
were  compelled,  by  parliamentary  enactments  and  royal  decrees,  to  wear 
domestic  fabrics.  While  it  was  necessary  to  resort  to  severer  measures 
to  promote  the  industries  of  a  country  in  those  times  than  are  required  now, 
as  a  means  of  advancing  the  material  prosperity  of  nations  the  polic}- 
was  successful. 

The  criticism  which  modern  free  traders  make  on  the  Mercantilists 
for  prohibiting  the  export  of  bullion  is  found  to  be"  unjustifiable  when 
the  conditions  under  which  trade  was  then  carried  on,  are  understood. 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  prior  to  the  Middle  Ages  the  Roman  Empire, 
in  carrying  on  trade  with  Asia,  had  little  which  the  Asiatic  people 
desired,  to  give  in  exchange  for  the  luxuries  and  fabrics  of  the  East ; 
hence,  the  .settlement  of  balances  each  year  resulted  in  a  constant  drain 
of  the  precious  metals  from  the  Roman  Empire,  to  the  extent,  as  Mr. 
Merivale  infornis  us,  of  $800,000  a  year.  During  the  Middle  Ages  the 
same  conditions  existed  between  Western  Europe  and  Asia.  When  the 
trade  was  opened  by  way  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  with  India,  the 
imports  of  tea,  spices,  and  luxuries  of  the  East  greatly  exceeded  the 
exports  thereto  from  Western  Europe,  and  it  was  not  until  the  cotton 
manufactories  became  extensive  and  the  people  of  England  and  Western 
Europe  began  making  fine  furniture  and  other  articles  for  which  there 
was  a  demand  among  the  wealthy  classes  of  the  Ea.st,  that  an  exchange 
of  products  could  be  made  .sufficient  to  prevent  a  constant  drain  of  the 
precious  metals  from  the  West  by  the  East.  The  Asiatic  peoples  have 
ever  been  noted  for  their  desire  for  the  precious  metahs  and  for  the 
practice  of  hoarding  gold  and  silver. 


ECONOJnC  DISCUSSIOX. 


Up  to  the  discovery  of  the  new  world  the  annual  supplj'  of  the 
precious  metals  was  very  limited.  According  to  Humboldt,  the  annual 
average  of  the  supplies  of  gold  and  silver  from  America  from  1492  to 
1S05  was  as  follows: 

Dollars  a  year  at  an 
average. 

From  1492  to  1500 270,000 

"   1500  to  1545, 3.258>ooo 

"   1545  to  1600 11,945,000 

"   1600  to  1700, 17,375,000 

"   1700  to  1750, 24,435,000 

"   1750  to  1S05 3.S,335,ooo 

He  also  estimated  that  the  annual  production  of  the  world  at  the 
beginning  of  this  century  was,  $43,500,000  from  America,  and  about 
$5,000,000  from  the  mines  of  Hungary,  Saxony,  etc.,  and  those  of 
Northern  Asia.  The  proportion  of  gold  to  silver  in  America  was  i  to  46, 
and  in  Europe  and  Asia  i  to  40.  The  supply  of  the  precious  metals 
which  had  hitherto  been  limited,  although  augmented  by  the  mines  of 
Mexico  and  South  America,  was  greatly  increased  upon  the  discovery  of 
gold  in  California  in  1849,  and  in  Australia  in  1851.  The  constant  absorp- 
tion of  the  precious  metals  by  Asia  up  to  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  continually  tended  to  embarrass  the  commercial  nations  of  Cen- 
tral and  Western  Europe.  Humboldt  estimated  that  of  the  production 
of  the  American  mines  at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  amounting,  as 
is  shown,  to  $43,500,000,  no  less  than  $25,500,000  went  to  Asia. 
Another  writer  has  said : 

But  some  years  ago  this  immense  drain  began  to  diminish,  and  in  1832  and  1833  it 
actually  set  in  in  an  opposite  direction.  Then  for  a  time  it  fluctuated,  sometimes  inclin- 
ing to  the  one  side  and  sometimes  to  the  other.  With  the  exception,  however,  of  the 
bullion  received  in  payment  of  the  ^2 1,000,000  due  to  us  by  China  under  the  treaty  of 
1S42,  there  was  not  for  some  years  any  very  decided  movement  of  bullion  from 
Europe  to  the  East,  or  from  the  East  to  Europe,  though,  on  the  whole,  the  imports 
into  the  latter  appear  to  have  exceeded  the  exports  ;  at  least  this  was  certainly  *" 
case  during  the  five  years  from  1S44-45  to  184S-49,  both  inclusive.  But  more  receii 
or  since  1850,  the  drain  of  bullion  for  the  East  set  in  with  renewed  force  ;  and  for 
seven  years  down  to  the  crisis  of  1S66,  the  average  was  only  ^10,000,000.' 

In  speaking  of  India  and  China  he  says:  "Taking  India  and  China 
together,  the  imports  from  them  into  this  country  have  greatly  exceeded 
the  exports,  leaving  a  heavy  balance  to  be  discharged  by  shipments  of 
bullion." 

Hence,  it  is  apparent  that  the  condition  of  trade  between  Asia  and 
Western  Europe  made  it  necessary  to  impose  restrictions  on  the  export 
of  the  precious  metals,  and  thereby  force  an  exchange  of  goods.  As, 
however,  the  trade  of  Great  Britain  increased  with  the  United  States  and 
South  America,  the  balance  existing  in  favor  of  Great  Britain  was  settled 

■  Hugh  J.  Reid,  editor  of  .McCulloch's  Dictionary,  edition  of  1871,  p.  1129. 


of  prevent- 

nf  the 
precious 
met  ah. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


with  a  supply  of  the  precious  metals,  with  which  to  meet  the  demands 
of  the  East.  Again,  as  England  had  become  the  distributer  of  tea,  coffee 
and  Asiatic  commodities  among  the  nations  of  the  world,  her  merchants 
were  able  to  exchange  the  commodities  themselves,  for  the  precious  metals 
of  the  United  States  and  other  countries,  with  which  to  pay  for  the 
Eastern  wares  and  to  buy  more.  Understanding  these  conditions,  the 
criticism  of  the  free  traders  upon  the  means  resorted  to  by  Great  Britain 
and  other  European  nations,  to  prevent  the  precious  metals  from  being- 
drawn  off,  is  shown  to  be  fallacious  and  unwarranted.  The  centre  of  trade 
and  commerce  has,  through  centuries,  been  .shifted  from  Eastern  to 
Western  nations. 

As  long  as  Western  Europe  depended  on  Asia  for  its  commodities, 
the  bullion  was  taken  from  it.  As  long  as  England  depended  on  the 
Flemish  and  Dutch  for  their  wares,  she  suffered  from  a  drain  of  her 
precious  metals.  So  it  has  been  with  South  America,  the  United  States 
and  the  countries  of  the  western  hemisphere.  As  long  as  they  have 
purchased  more  of  British,  Continental  and  Asiatic  commodities  than 
they  were  able  to  sell  commodities  to  pay  for,  the  balance  of  trade- has 
been  against  them  and  it  has  been  settled  by  shipments  of  the  precious 
metals.  Instead  of  prohibiting  the  export  of  bullion  as  did  the  Mercan- 
tilists, the  protectionists  seek  to  avoid  such  results  by  building  up 
domestic  industries,  encouraging  trade  at  home,  and  thereby  buying  less 
of  the  foreigners,  and  maintaining  a  favorable  balance  of  trade. 

The  foregoing  are  the  principal  features  of  the  Mercantile  System 
which  call  for  an  explanation. 

Protection  and  Free  Trade  Defined. 

It  was  not  until  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  eco- 
nomics were  presented  in  the  form  of  a  science.  ' '  The  Wealth  of 
Nations"  was  followed  by  the  works  of  J.  B.  Say,  Malthus,  Ricardo, 
James  Mill,  McCulloch,  John  Stuart  Mill,  and  others.  In  1S48  John 
Stuart  Mill  collected  those  assumptions  and  alleged  economic  principles 
which  had  been  announced  by  former  writers,  and  embodied  them  in  an 
economic  code  which  embraced  the  principles  contended  for  by  the  free 
trade  .school. 

The  Mercantilists  had  held  extreme  and  radical  views  of  the  means 
by  which  industries  could  best  be  developed  and  promoted,  as  well  as 
upon  the  system  of  taxation  by  which  the  public  treasury  should  be  sup- 
plied with  funds.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noted  that  those  advo- 
cating free  trade  carried  their  views  to  an  opposite  extreme.  The 
Mercantilists  and  free  traders  represent  the  two  extreme  radical  wings 
of  economic  parties,  while  the  protectionists  occupy  the  middle  ground 
between  the  two,  discarding  tho.se  practices  of  the  Mercantili.sts 
which  were  found  to  be  unnecessary  and  injurious,  and  preserving  and 


EC0K03IIC  DISCUSSION. 


perpetuating   those   principles   which    the   experience  of   the   past  had 
demonstrated  to  be  wise,  just  and  beneficent. 

This  brings  us  to  a  definition  of  protection  and  free  trade. 

Protection. — Protection  may  be  divided  into  two  classses:  (i)  natural 
protection;   (2)  legal  protection. 

It  has  been  said  that  "he  is  best  protected  who  needs  no  protection  at 
all. ' '  Natural  protection  maj^  arise  from  a  soil  and  climate  favorable  to 
the  products  of  the  earth,  or  from  superior  skill,  or  from  the  location  or 
occupation  in  which  one  is  engaged.  The  favorable  soil  and  climate  for 
the  growth  of  cotton  in  the  United  States,  rubber  and  coffee  in  Brazil, 
sugar  and  tobacco  in  Cuba,  and  tea,  coffee  and  silk  in  Asia,  are  all  exam- 
ples. At  the  time  that  Great  Britain  adopted  free  trade,  the  superior 
skill  of  her  artisans,  the  abundant  capital  and  machinery  then  employed 
in  her  vast  manufacturing  system,  afforded  an  advantage  over  other  coun- 
tries and  secured  the  independence  of  her  manufacturing  industries. 
Occupations  also  .sometimes  afford  a  .shield  from  competition  and  a  degree 
of  natural  protection.  For  instance,  masons,  bricklayers,  carpenters, 
compositors  on  newspapers,  those  engaged  in  transportation  and  tele- 
graphing, are  as  secure  as  the  cotton  producer,  .so  far  as  the  occupation 
itself  is  concerned;  while  the  operative  in  a  woolen  mill  is  subjected  to 
the  competition  of  a  foreign  product  similar  to  the  one  he  produces 
While  bricklayers,  carpenters,  etc.,  are  classified  by  free  trade  writers  as 
being  engaged  in  non-protected  industries,  they  are  in  fact  the  best  pro- 
tected laborers  in  the  country;  they  enjoy  a  degree  of  natural  protection, 
while  at  the  same  time  they  derive  advantage  from  the  legal  protection 
extended  to  those  who  otherwise  would  be  without  any  protection. 

Labor  protection  signifies  a  system  of  legislation  for  the  special  pro- 
tection of  employees  in  factories,  under  which  the  employment  of  women 
and  children  and  the  length  of  a  day's  labor  are  restricted  and  regulated. 
It  also  seeks  to  guard  the  health  and  morals  of  operatives  through  sani- 
tary regulations.  It  is  under  this  class  of  legislation  that  truck  1  n^ment 
is  prohibited.  This  system  of  protection  was  vigorously  opposed  by 
Richard  Cobden  and  John  Bright,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  an  inter- 
ference with  the  freedom  of  contract  and  therefore  in  violation  of  the 
cardinal  principle  of  free  trade. 

Protection  secured  by  duties  on  imports  has  been  defined  by  Senator 
George  F.  Hoar,  as  follows:  ' 

Protection,  as  used  in  our  political  and  economic  discussions,  is  the  imposing  of 
such  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  products  as  will  prevent  a  domestic  pro- 
ducer of  the  same  article,  from  having  his  business  destroyed  by  the  competition  of 
the  foreign  import,  zvliile  he  establishes  it ;  or  will  enable  him  to  maintain  the 
production,  without  its  being  destroyed  or  rendered  unprofitable  by  the  competition 
of  the  foreign  article  ci/ler  it  is  established,  when  he  could  not  otherwise  so  establish 

1  Taxation  and  Work,  by  Edward  Atkinson,  page  Si. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


or  maintain  it  ;  or  the  enabling  him  to  pay  larger  wages  in  such  production  tlian  he 
could  pay  if  he  were  subject  to  the  foreign  competition. 

The  extent  of  the  duty  imposed  on  each  article  is  determined  b_v  the 
special  circumstances  connected  with  its  production.  While  a  duty  of 
20  per  cent  on  one  article  may  afford  adequate  protection,  100  per 
cent  may  be  required  for  another;  but  in  all  cases  it  must  be  sufiScient  to 
accomplish  the  purpose  stated.  The  duties  are  imposed  to  provide 
against  a  disadvantage  arising  from  deficiency  of  .skill, capital, machinery, or 
from  an  increased  cost  of  production  by  the  payment  of  higher  wages 
than  are  paid  by  rival  producers  of  the  same  article  in  other  countries. 

In  some  instances  protective  duties  may  be  imposed  upon  articles  of 
foreign  growth,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  securing  to  domestic  producers 
the  full  home  market.  .  Of  this  class  is  the  duty  on  agricultural  products 
in  the  United  States.  The  protectionists  of  the  United  States  are  .striving 
first  to  provide  for  the  welfare  of  their  own  people.  They  believe  it  to 
be  the  first  iduty  of  our  government  to  promote  the  moral,  intellectual  and 
material  welfare  of  the  70,000,000  of  inhabitants  within  our  borders. 
This  of  it-self  is  a  great  undertaking,  and  commands  the  greatest  exer- 
tion, and  involves  the  greatest  moral  responsibility  and  the  highest  con- 
ception of  the  attainments  of  humanity.  They  make  war  on  no  one :  they 
are  not  trying  to  undermine  and  destroy  the  civilization  and  industries 
of  other  nations,  by  flooding  their  markets  with  wares  made  by  degraded 
and  half-paid  labor.  The  protective  barriers  are  erected  as  a  means  of 
defence  to  maintain  industrial  peace  and  tranquillity,  to  prevent  attacks 
from  vicious  combinations  and  inequality  and  injustice. 

Our  manufacturers  cannot  employ  labor  at  wages  100  per  cent 
higher  than  are  paid  to  equally  skilled  and  efficient  labor  in  Europe,  and 
produce  articles  as  cheaply  as  similar  articles  are  produced  there.  By 
compelling  the  European  rival  to  pay  to  the  government  a  duty  equal  to 
the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  upon  placing  his  goods  for  sale  in 
our  market  in  competition  with  the  home-made  article,  the  advantage  of 
cheap  labor  which  he  possesses  is  neutralized,  and  he  is  only  able  to  enter 
the  American  .market  upon  equal  terms  and  conditions  with  the  American 
producer.  If  wages  in  Europe  .should  be  raised  to  the  level  of  those 
paid  in  the  United  States,  so  that  the  contest  would  be  one  purely  of  skill 
and  enterprise,  a  different  question  would  arise. 

The  esisence  of  protection  then  is,  that  by  such  duties  on  imports, 
capitalists  are  induced  to  invest  their  money  in  the  establishment  of  a 
greater  variety  of  industries  which  give  employment  to  a  large  number 
of  people,  at  higher  wages  than  otherwise  would  be  paid,  thereby  pro- 
viding the  masses  of  the  people  with  greater  incomes,  and  making  it 
possible  to  sustain  a  larger  population,  procure  a  wider  diversity  of 
industries,  a  more  perfect  division  of  labor  and  the  attainment  of  a 
1  greater  degree  of  industrial  development  and  prosperity  than  otherwise 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


could  be  secured.  The  agriculturist  exchanges  his  products  for  home 
manufactured  goods,  saving  waste  in  transportation  and  securing  to 
domestic  trade  the  full  advantage  of  the  exchange.  The  result  attained 
by  this  policy  is  the  greatest  triumph  of  political  economy.  By  increas- 
ing the  spendable  income  of  the  people,  much  wider  fields  of  business  are 
opened,  a  more  equal  distribution  of  wealth  is  assured,  and  the  people,  as 
a  whole,  in  the  end  are  enabled  to  accumulate  more  property  and  receive 
greater  returns  for  their  exertions  than  through  the  narrow  and  restricted 
development  of  resources  permissible  under  free  competition. 

Free  Trade. 

The  following  definition  is  given  by  Professor  W.  G.  Sumner: 

Free  Trade:  The  term  "  Free  Trade,"  although  much  discussed,  is  seldom  rightly 
defined.  It  does  not  mean  the  abolition  of  custom  houses,  nor  does  it  mean  the  sub- 
stitution of  direct  for  indirect  taxation,  as  a  few  American  disciples  of  the  school 
have  supposed.  /£  means  such  an  adjustment  of  taxts  on  hiiports  as  will  cause  no 
diversion  of  capital  from  any  channel  into  which  it  icoiild  otherwise  flow,  into  any 
channel  opened  or  favored  by  the  legislation  which  enacts  the  customs.  A  country- 
may  collect  its  entire  revenue  by  duties  on  imports  and  yet  be  an  entirely  free  trade 
country,  so  long  as  it  does  not  lay  those  duties  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  anyoi. 
undertake  any  employment,  or  make  any  investment  he  ivould  avoid  in  the  absence  of 
such  duties;  thus  the  custom  duties  levied  by  England,  with  a  very  few  exceptions 
are  not  inconsistent  with  her  profession  of  being  a  country  which  believes  in  free 
trade.  They  either  are  duties  on  articles  not  produced  in  England,  or  they  are 
exactly  equivalent  to  the  excise  duties  levied  on  the  same  articles  if  made  at  home. 
They  do  not  lead  anyone  to  put  his  money  into  the  home  production  of  an  article 
because  they  do  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  the  home  producer.^ 

The  above  definition,  although  from  an  eminent  free  trade  authority, 
contains  the  assumption  that  an  industry  becomes  established  under  pro- 
tection at  the  expense  of  other  employments,  by  drawing  capital  and 
labor  from  fields  in  which,  were  it  not  for  protection,  it  would  find 
equally  profitable  employment.  This  assumption  presents  an  argument 
in  favor  of,  rather  than  a  necessary  part  of  a  definition  of  free  trade.  The 
free  trader,  then,  holds  that  foreign  manufacturers  .should  be  permitted, 
without  restrictions  and  with  perfect  freedom,  to  ship  all  manufactured 
articles  into  the  United  States,  and  sell  them  in  competition  with  Ameri- 
can manufactures,  even  though  such  competition  would  result  in  perma- 
nently supplanting  the  manufacturing  industries  of  the  United  States,  or 
in  reducing  the  rate  of  wages  and  cost  of  production  to  the  level  of  com 
petitors  in  foreign  countries.  This  principle  applies  also  to  the  imports 
<)f  farm  produce,  as  well  as  all  raw  materials,  although  it  would  have  a 
like  effect  on  sheep  raising,  mining  and  agriculture.  It  is  contended  that 
all  articles  should  be  manufactured  and  everything  grown  in  those  countries 
where  the  greatest  facilities  for  cheap  production  exist,   in  order  that 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


everything  may  be  produced  at  the  lowest  possible  cost  regardless  of  the 
effect  on  wages  and  the  social  conditions  of  the  masses.  No  favoritism 
should  be  shown  to  labor  by  legislation,  securing  to  it  the  advantage  of 
higher  wages  than  those  paid  in  other  countries.  This  is  based  upon  the 
idea  that  all  nations  belong  to  one  family,  and  that  each  country  should 
be  permitted  to  remain  in  undisturbed  possession  of  those  advantages  over 
others  in  such  respects  as  raw  materials,  machinery,  capital,  skill  and 
cheap  labor.  This  policy  regards  labor  as  an  economic  tool,  to  be  utilized 
in  the  production  of  cheap  commodities  in  the  same  way  as  raw  materials, 
a  fertile  soil  and  a  favorable  climate.  Those  countries  which  can  produce 
wheat  cheapest,  will  supply  the  market;  those  countries  which  can  pro- 
vide manufactures  at  the  lowest  cost,  will  do  the  manufacturing  for  all 
others.  It  is  by  this  .system  that  the  varied  resources  of  the  world  are 
to  be  developed,  and  material  progress  is  to  be  promoted. 

It  will  be  obser\'ed  that  this  policy  does  not  necessarily  involve  the 
removal  of  all  duties  on  competing  imports.  So  long  as  the  dutj'  is  so 
low  that  it  does  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  the  home  producer;  so  long 
as  it  does  not  (under  existing  conditions)  secure  to  domestic  labor  and 
capital  an  advantage  over  foreign  rivals;  so  long  as  it  does  not  encourage 
the  building  of  factories  or  the  employment  of  labor,  it  is  a  free  trade 
duty.  A  duty  of  20  per  cent  may  produce  revenue;  but  if  the  foreign 
manufacturer  of  an  article  can  pay  this  duty  .and  still  sell  the  article  in 
our  market  cheaper  than  we  can  make  it  at  our  present  wage  rate,  it  is  a 
free  trade  duty. 

Revenue  or  Taxation. 

A  country  practicing  free  trade  in  applying  its  revenue  policy, 
imposes  duties  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  discourage  imports  or  interfere 
with  the  free  competition  in  products  the  like  of  which  are  produced  at 
home.  For  instance,  England,  as  has  been  stated,  although  practicing 
free  trade,  levies  her  import  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  tropical  fruits, 
tobacco,  wines  and  liquors,  and  those  articles  which  she  does  not  produce, 
but  which  her  people  are  compelled  to  buy  abroad. 

The  protectionists  admit,  free  of  duty,  all  articles  that  cannot 
be  produced  in  the  United  States,  consisting  principally  of  tea,  coffee, 
rubber,  raw  silk,  tropical  fruits,  dye  stuffs,  etc.  (excepting,  however, 
certain  luxuries,  such  as  wiues,  liquors,  diamonds  and  other  articles  of 
voluntary  consumption),  and  levy  duties  on  those  imported  articles  the  like 
of  which  are  produced  at  home,  as  cotton,  woolens,  and  all  other  manufac- 
tured products  which  would  come  into  ruinous  competition  with  domestic 
produce;  consequently,  in  a  discussion  of  this  question,  we  are  compelled 
to  use  two  other  terms  which  have  a  technical  meaning,  to  wit:  "Free 
trade  tariff,"  which  signifies  the  mode  of  imposing  duties  on  imports 
approved  by  free  traders,  in  otherwords,  a  "tariff  for  revenue  only;" 


ECOXOmC  DISCUSSION. 


and  "protective  tariff,  "  or  the  system  of  duties  on  imports  favored  by  pro- 
tectionists. Were  it  not  for  the  necessity  of  raising  revenues  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  government,  absohite  free  trade  would  be  practiced  instead 
of  maintaining  a  "free  trade  tariff."  Senator  Ragan,  of  Texas,  very 
clearly  pointed  out  the  precise  difference  between  a  "tariff  for  revenue 
only"  and  a  "protective  tariff"  as  follows: 

"As  long  as  the  increase  of  tax  secures  an  increase  of  revenue, 
it  is  a  revenue  tariff,  but  when  we  reach  the  point  in  any  commodity 
where  the  increase  of  the  tax  reduces  the  revenue  by  excluding  imports 
we  then  have  a  tariff  that  is  protective. ' ' 

Hence,  a  "tariff  for  revenue  only"  is  a  free  trade  tariff.  It 
encourages  importations  and  places  no  restrictions  upon  free  compe- 
tition. As  soon,  however,  as  the  duty  becomes  high  enough  to  restrict 
importations  and  secures  to  the  domestic  producer  an  advantage  over 
a  foreign  rival,  it  becomes  protective.  In  imposing  duties  on  imports 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  the  free  trader  selects  non-competing 
articles,  while  the  protectionist  fixes  the  duty  on  competing  articles 
in  order  that  a  discrimination  may  be  made  in  favor  of  the  home 
industry.  But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  neither  the  protectionist 
nor  free  trader  favors  the  raising  of  more  revenue  than  is  required  to 
defray  the  necessary  and  legitimate  requirements  of  the  government  eco- 
nomically administered.  The  essential  difference  between  the.se  two 
methods  of  raising  revenue  is  met  with  in  times  of  peace  when  only 
ordinary  expenses  are  incurred.  In  times  of  war,  however,  when  extra- 
ordinary means  of  raising  revenue  must  be  resorted  to  by  a  nation,  these 
lines  are  readily  departed  from  by  both  parties. 

One  of  the  chief  objections  raised  by  the  free  traders  against  the  use 
of  the  system  of  imposing  duties  on  imports  to  accomplish  the  double 
purpose  of  raising  revenue  and  affording  protection  is,  that  such  indirect 
taxation  takes  money  out  of  one  man' s  pocket  for  the  benefit  of  another ;  that 
it  is  unjust  to  compel  a  citizen  who  lives  on  a  stated  income  which  is  not 
liable  to  be  diminished  through  the  conditions  of  trade,  to  contribute  in 
any  way  to  the  maintenance  of  the  industrial  system  of  the  country.  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  right  of  taxation  is  not  based  on  direct 
benefits  to  the  particular  individual  taxed,  but  upon  the  indirect  benefits 
which  accrue  to  him  as  a  member  of  the  state.  It  is  under  this  principle 
that  a  citizen  is  taxed  to  maintain  a  public  school  system,  departments 
of  justice,  and  public  improvements.  A  protective  tariff  is  no  more 
imposed  for  the  sole  benefit  of  those  persons  who  own  factories  and  the 
laborers  who  find  employment  in  them,  than  the  Erie  Canal  was  constructed 
for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  boatmen  who  owned  the  canal  boats,  and  the 
business  men  who  shipped  their  produce  to  market  by  this  waterway. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  contributed  money  for.  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Union  Pacific  and  the  Northern  Pacific  railroads,  and  parted 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


with  the  public  domain  to  induce  their  construction,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  the  direct  benefit  and  profit  that  might  be  derived  from  such  enter- 
prises by  the  stockholders  who  became  owners  of  such  corporations, 
but  because  of  the  benefits  to  the  great  Northwest  and  its  people,  and 
in  order  to  aid  in  the  development  of  the  resources  of  the  country, 
Large  sums  of  money  are  expended  every  year  by  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment of  the  United  States,  to  aid  in  the  high  development  of  that  vast 
and  important  department  of  production.  Other  departments  also  recei^•e 
similar  aid.  The  government  of  the  United  States  expends  annuallj-  about 
$10,000,000  for  the  improvement  of  the  rivers  and  harbors  of  the  country, 
to  promote  our  coasting  and  lake  traffic.  Not  one  dollar  of  this  money  is 
appropriated  for  the  sole  purpose  of  benefiting  the  particular  individuals 
who  find  employment  in  these  departments,  but  for  the  general  benefits 
which  accrue  to  the  whole  country  through  the  activity  in  trade  and  com- 
merce thereby  induced.  All  phases  of  our  industrial  life  receive  the 
patronage,  encouragement  and  support  of  the  people,  uniting  them 
together  in  a  common  bond  of  intere.st,  mutual  .sympathy  and  patriotic 
zeal  for  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the  whole  country. 

Incident.vl  Protection. 

President  Polk,  in  his  message  to  Congress  December  2,  1845,  said: 
' '  If  Congress  levy  a  duty  for  revenue  of  one  per  cent  on  a  given  article  it 
will  produce  a  given  amount  of  money  to  the  treasury  and  will  incident- 
ally and  necessarily  afford  protection  of  advantage  to  the  amount  of  one 
per  cent  to  home  manufactures  of  a  similar  or  like  -article,  over  the 
importer. ' ' 

The  claim  of  incidental  protection  arising  under  these  circumstances 
forms  one  of  the  chief  deceptions  practiced  by  those  who  have  little  under- 
standing of  the  principles  involved,  or  who  are  seeking  to  evade  the  real 
issue.  It  must  be  apparent  to  the  reader  that  if  it  cost  one  hundred  cents 
to  manufacture  a  particular  article  in  the  United  States,  which  could  be 
made  in  England  for  fifty  cents,  and  sold  in  our  market  for  fifty-five  cents, 
that  a  duty  of  one  cent  would  cut  no  figure  in  the  way  of  protecting  the 
American  producer.  The  American  manufacturer  would  then  be  com- 
pelled to  sell  the  article  in  competition  with  its  foreign  rival  for  fifty-six 
cents  or  less.  In  order  to  meet  such  a  condition  and  continue  in  business, 
he  must  make  a  reduction  of  forty-four  cents  in  the  selling  price  which 
must  come  out  of  his  own  cost  of  production,  90  per  cent  of  which  is 
labor.  Hence,  it  must  be  that  unless  the  duty  imposed  is  large  enough 
to  compensate  for  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production  it  is  not  protec- 
tive, but  simply  a  revenue  or  free  trade  tariff.  The  duties  levied  must 
afford  adequate  protection  in  order  to  result  favorably  to  American  labor. 
At  whatever  point  the  duties  ma}-  be  fixed  below  what  is  necessarj-  to 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


compensate  for  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production,  based  on  American 
wages,  the  result  is  to  bring  our  labor  down  nearer  to  the  level  of  foreign 
rivals. 

Tariff  Reform. 

This  is  a  title  appropriated  or  misappropriated  b^'  the  advocates  of 
free  trade  in  their  recent  attack  on  the  industries  of  the  United  States. 
When  the  agitation  in  favor  of  free  trade  was  renewed  about  1880,  the 
•"Free  Trade  Club,"  of  New  York  City,  changed  its  name  to  the 
"Reform  Club."  Instead  of  flooding  the  United  States  with  literature 
bearing  the  stamp  of  the  Cobden  Club,  as  had  hitherto  occurred,  and 
carrying  on  the  warfare  against  protection  in  the  name  of  free  trade,  they 
branded  their  publications  "Tariff  Reform,"  and  styled  themselves 
"Tariff  Reformers. ' '  Although  persistently  urging  the  doctrines  of  free 
trade,  by  changing  their  name  and  denying  their  parentage,  it  became 
more  easy  to  deceive  and  mislead  the  American  people.  To  the  credit 
of  Southern  Democrats  it  should  be  said,  that  such  tactics  have  not 
been  practiced  by  them;  they  have  stood  up  like  men,  and  when  they 
meant  free  trade  they  have  said  it,  and  have  been  saying  it  all  the 
time.  The  term  itself  involves  a  begging  of  the  entire  question,  for  if 
the  principles  advocated  by  the  protectionists  are  more  beneficial,  wi.se 
and  just  than  those  contended  for  by  free  traders,  then  legislation  on  the 
lines  of  the  protective  policy  becomes  "Tariff  Reform"  legislation.  The 
words  "free  trade"  were  known  to  be  so  objectionable  to  the  x\merican 
people  that  this  deceptive  style  of  advertising  was  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  concealing  the  ultimate  purpose  of  the  movement,  which  was 
the  establishment  of  the  British  system. 

The  whole  scheme  was  unmasked  by  Chairman  Wilson  himself,  who, 
at  a  banquet  given  in  his  honor  in  England  by  British  manufacturers 
shortly  after  the  passage  of  the  Gorman-Wilson  Bill,  said:  "Our  pro- 
tectionists have  been  building  defences  to  keep  you  and  other  nations 
from  competing  with  us  in  our  home  market.  The  tariff  reformers  are 
breaking  down  those  defences. ' ' 

Method  of  Treatment. 
The  first  important  contention  which  arose  between  the  protectionists 
and  the  free  traders  is  found  in  the  mode  of  treatment  and  investigation. 
The  plan  adopted  by  those  believing  in  the  policy  of  protection,  was  the  ' '  in- 
ductive or  historical  method"  of  inquiry.  They  treated  the  subject  not  only 
from  a  broader  standpoint  than  the  free  traders,  but  with  a  greater  degree 
of  certainty  of  arriving  at  the  truth.  Every  practical  proposition  was 
required  by  them  to  be  established  by  facts.  This  involved  full  inquiry 
and  careful  investigation.  It  was  held  that  "a  sound  and  trained  reason 
is  possessed  by  one  who  has  made  a  wide  and  careful  survey  of  the  facts 
50 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The    fundamental  ideas  of  the  historical 
Roscher,   the  German    philosopher,   as   fol- 


which  justify  the  reason.' 
method  are  laid  down  bj- 
lows : 

(i)  The  aim  is  to  represent  what  nations  have  thought,  willed  and 
discovered  in  the  economic  field,  what  tliej'  have  striven  after  and 
attained,  and  why  they  have  attained  it.  (2)  A  people  is  not  merely  a 
mass  of  individuals  now  living.  It  will  not  suffice  to  observe  contemporary 
facts.  (3)  All  the  peoples  of  whom  we  can  learn  anything  must  be 
studied  and  compared  from  the  economic  point  of  view,  especialh-  the 
ancient  peoples  whose  development  lies  before  us  in  its  totality.  (4)  We 
must  not  simply  praise  or  blame  economic  institutions ;  few  of  them  have 
been  salutary  or  detrimental  to  all  peoples  and  at  all  stages  of  culture ; 
rather  it  is  a  principal  task  of  science  to  show  how  and  why  out  of  what 
was  once  reasonable  and  beneficent,  the  unwise  and  inexpedient  has  often 
gradually  arisen.' 

Thismethod  was  pursued  by  Adam  Smith  in  his  "Wealth  of  Nations," 
by  Henry  C.  Carey,  and  his  followers  in  America,  by  the  German  econo- 
mists and  the  more  recent  English  and  American  writers.  This  is  the 
practical  method  pursued  by  statesmen,  lawyers,  physicians,  business 
men  and  scientists  in  reaching  conclusions  in  all  affairs  brought  within 
the  domain  of  their  work. 

One  result  of  the  teachings  of  this  .school  has  been  to  turn  the  minds 
of  students  of  economic  questions  not  only  to  the  history  of  what  has  been 
said  upon  this  .subject,  but  also  to  a  critical  investigation  of  those  trans- 
actions and  occurrences  from  which  all  economic  thought  springs.  We 
have  passed  from  a  period  of  speculation  to  one  of  scientific  investigation 
of  facts.  On  the  other  hand,  those  believing  in  the  system  of  free  trade 
have  a  plan  known  as  the  "deductive  or  metaphysical  method,"  which 
has  been  briefly  defined  as  "a  theory  based  on  assumption." 

Professor  Ingram,  in  his  "History  of  Political  Economy,"  says: 

"Its  deductions  are  based  on  unreal,  or  at  least  one-sided  a.ssumptions, 
the  essential  of  which  is  that  of  the  existence  of  the  so-called  'economic 
man,'  a  being  who  is  influenced  by  two  motives  only;  that  of  acquiring 
wealth  and  that  of  avoiding  exertion." 

Relying  on  assumptions  as  the  basis  of  their  creed,  they  refuse  to 
enter  the  domain  of  historical  research  in  order  to  prove  their  soundness 
by  the  experience  of  nations.  This  mode  of  treatment  has  proven  so 
unsatisfactory  to  statesmen,  scholar.s  and  men  of  experience  in  ordinary 
affairs  of  life,  that  it  has  brought  the  metaphysical  school  into  disfavor 
and  it  may  now  be  said  that  the  economic  discussion  which  has  followed, 
has  resulted  in  the  repudiation  of  this  mode  of  investigation  by  nearly 
all  economists,  and  even  many  advocates  of  free  trade  have  been  compelled 
practically  to  abandon  it. 

1  Stt  Ingram's  History  of  Political  Economy,  p.  joi. 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


I 


Limitations  of  the  Subject. 

At  the  outset  we  meet  with  a  controversy  over  the  scope  of  the 
inquiry.  The  subject  of  political  economy  is  defined  by  an  advocate  of 
the  doctrine  of  protection  to  native  industrJ^  as  follows : 

Henry  C.  Carey:  "The  science  of  the  laws  which  govern  man  in  his 
efforts  to  secure  for  himself  the  highest  i^idividuality  and  the  greatest 
power  of  association.'" 

It  is  apparent  then,  that  the  controversy  arising  between  the  advo- 
cates of  protection  and  free  trade,  embraces  not  only  the  subject  itself, 
which  is  to  be  considered,  but  the  .scope  and  extent  of  questions  relating 
to  it.  By  protectionists  man  is  regarded  as  "a  unit  of  society, 
a  worker  in  business  and  a  citizen  of  the  state."  His  moral,  intel- 
lectual and  material  welfare  is  taken  into  account.  The  interests  of 
individuals  are  looked  upon  as  insignificant  when  they  conflict  with  the 
public  good.  This  .school  is  broad  enough  to  comprehend  those  differ- 
ences which  appear  in  the  races  of  men,  as  well  as  in  the  destiu}- 
and  capabilities  of  societies  and  nations.  It  also  recognizes  the  geo- 
graphical divisions  of  the  earth  with  tho.se  natural  resources  which  may 
by  proper  direction  of  human  effort,  be  utilized  for  the  benefit  of 
mankind. 

Those  advocating  free  trade  attempt,  in  the  first  jalace,  to  limit  the 
functions  of  governments  to  the  power  of  preserving  order  and  enforcing 
contracts.  Man  is  treated  of  as  a  commodity  for  sale  in  the  market, 
or  as  a  machine  of  a  certain  horse  power.     Ba.stiat  says: 

"To  political  economy  is  left  only  the  cold  domain  of  personal 
interest. ' '. 

McLeod  defines  it  as  "the  science  of  exchange  of  values. " 

Free  traders  persistently  attempt  to  limit  inquiry  and  treatment 
solely  to  the  subject  of  monej'-getting  b)'  individuals.  It  is  from  this 
method  of  dealing  with  the  subject,  arising  from  their  conception  of  man 
as  governed  wholly  by  selfishness  and  animal  instincts  in  the  affairs  of 
life,  that  the  free  trade  school  has  been  accused  of  advocating  cold- 
blooded, unsympathetic  rules  for  the  government  of  trade  and  commerce. 
That  this  accusation  was  well  founded  appears  in  every  line  of  their  litera- 
ture, in  every  assumption  made.  They  persistently  refuse  to  consider  man 
in  his  relation  to  other  men  as  a  member  of  .society,  as  well  as  an  individual. 
The  effort  to  limit  the  scope  of  the  subject  has  brought  down  upon  the  school 
the  condemnation  of  the  broadest  minded  statesmen  and  philosophers  of  the 
world,  and  has  confined  its  advocates  to  a  sect  of  professors  who,  without 
jiractical  experience  in  business,  were  unable  to  form  a  just  estimate  of 
human  life,  and  to  those  manufacturers  who,  being  able  to  manufacture 
cheaper  than  anybody  else,  would  profit  by  a  system  which  secured  to  them 
perfect  freedom  to  carry  on  a  warfare  of  destructive  competition  against 


TARIFF  QVESriOX  IX  THE  UXITEI)  STATES 


all  rival  producers  of  other  countries,  and  thus  perpetuate  a  monopoly 
based  on  cheap  labor,  to  the  injur}-  of  others. 

Scientific  Basis  of  Protection  and  Free  Trade. 

The  essential  difference  between  the  two  systems  of  economics 
lies  at  the  ver}'  foundation  of  civilization,  and  forms  the  basis  of  the 
moral,  intellectual  and  material  development  of  man.  It  is  asserted  by 
the  metaphysical  school  that  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  is  a  science  founded 
on  a  "great  truth' '  or  "natural  law"  or  "scientific  principle"  of  universal 
application."  This  claim  has  been  so  persistently  urged  that  it  has  made 
a  profound  impression  on  the  world.  While  the  professional  advocates 
of  free  trade  constantly  refer  to  the  "great  truths"  and  "principles"  upon 
which  their  theory  is  founded,  yet  it  rarely  occurs  that  they  definitely 
point  them  out.  When  the  student  of  economics  understands  that  the  doc- 
trine of  free  trade  has  its  "scientific"  basis  in  the  principle  of  "natural 
selection"  upon  which  the  Darwinian  theory  of  the  origin  and  development 
of  species  is  founded,  he  is  then  able  to  comprehend  the  subject  from  a 
scientific  point  of  view.  Freedom  of  trade  between  nations  is  but  an 
application  to  trade,  commerce  and  industries,  of  the  law  of  "the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest"  or  "struggle  for  existence"  which  Charles  Darwin 
contended  has  raged  since  the  beginning  of  time,  in  the  formation  of  the 
earth  and  among  plants,  animals  and  men.  If  is  contended  that  in  this 
ever  raging  and  ceaseless  warfare,  in  which  many  perish  and  few  survive, 
nature  orders  every  man  to  his  place  and  preserves  the  "fittest"  and  the 
best,  and  that  ultimately,  through  this  constantly  recurring  "survival 
of  the  fittest,"  advancement  and  progress  are  more  surely  attained. 

Hence,  the  advocates  of  free  trade  are  constantly  reminding  the  world 
that  it  should  "let  nature  take  its  course,"  that  "freedom  of  action"  is 
"the  natural  law."  Under  this  principle,  which  is  more  politely  known 
as  "free  competition,"  the  industries  of  acountry  which  are  able  to  "sur- 
vive" the  warfare,  are  called  "natural"  industries;  and  the  wage  rate 
which  prevails  when  the  laborers  of  the  world  contest  with  each  other  and 
fight  out  the  battle  of  place,  however  low  it  may  be  or  however  inadequate, 
is  the  "natural"  wage  rate.  This  is  true  of  profits,  and  mode  of  living 
as  well. 

Edward  Clodd  says:' 

When  the  weeding  process  has  done  its  utmost,  there  remains  a  sharp  struggle  for 
life  between  the  survivors.  Man's  normal  state  is  therefore  one  of  conflict;  further 
back  than  we  can  trace,  it  impelled  the  defenceless  bipeds  from  whom  he  sprang  to 
unity,  and  the  more  so  because  of  their  relative  inferiority  in  physique  to  many  other 
animals.  The  range  of  that  unity  continued  narrow  long  after  he  had  gained  lord- 
ship over  the  brute;  outside  the  small  combinations  for  securing  the  primal  needs  of 
life  the  struggle  was  ferocious,  and,  under  one  form  or  another,  rages  along  the  line 

1  Story  of  Cvealion.  pages  211-12. 


EcoxoJiic  niscussiox. 


to  this  da\-.  "There  is  no  discharge  in  that  war."  It  may  change  its  tactics  and  its 
weapons;  among  advanced  nations  the  military  method  may  be  more  or  less  super- 
seded b}'  the  industrial— a  man  may  be  mercilessly  starved  instead  of  being  mercilessly 
slain;  but  be  it  war  of  camp  or  markets,  the  ultimate  appeal  is  to  force  of  brain  or 
muscle,  and  the  hardiest  or  craftiest  win.  In  some  respects  the  struggle  is  waged  more 
fiercely  than  in  olden  times,  while  it  is  unredeemed  by  any  element  of  chivalry. 

It  is  through  their  adherence  to  this  principle  that  the  believers  in 
the  doctrine  of  free  trade  denj-  to  society  the  right  to  attempt  by  positive 
law,  through  its  directing  and  controlling  power,  to  set  limits  upon  the 
free  exercise  of  the  animal  instincts  and  the  greed  and  selfishness  of  man 
in  this  struggle.  They  hold  that  this  eternal  warfare  should  be  per- 
mitted to  go  unbridled  and  rage  with  all  its  destructive  fury;  the 
weak  to  become  supplanted  and  wiped  out  and  the  cunning  and 
crafty  to  "survive"  under  the  assumption  that  this  is  nature's  process 
of  evolution  and  progress.  When  applied  to  international  competition 
in  trade  and  commerce,  the  weapons  of  attack  and  defence  are  capital, 
skill,  ability,  machinery,  low  wages  and  long  hours.  Ever>'  mean."5  by 
which  the  cheapest  production  can  be  attained,  that  through  a  system 
of  underselling,  markets  may  be  won  and  held,  must  be  resorted  to 
in  order  that  one  may  stipplant  the  other.  This  is  more  especially 
so  to-daj^  than  at  any  other  time  in  the  history  of  the  world,  since  so 
many  competitors  have  entered  the  contest  selling  the  same  wares, 
and  all  provided  with  abtxndant  capital  and  a  high  degree  of  skill,  and 
the  latest  and  best  appliances  and  machinery,  as  well  as  with  an  army 
of  trained  and  efiicient  artisans.  The  party  to  the  struggle  which  would 
make  fabrics  the  cheapest  would  control  and  hold  the  markets.  The  party 
to  the  struggle  whose  labor,  everything  else  being  equal,  would  submit 
to  and  stay  in  the  fight  on  the  lowest  wages,  and  the  capitalists  who 
would  submit  to  the  smallest  profits,  or  in  fact  could  endure  it  the  longest 
without  any  profits,  would  triumph  over  the  others.  The  masses  of  the 
United  States  would  be  brought  down  to  the  level  of  foreign  competitors; 
every  one  in  the  struggle  would  be  reduced  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
strongest  and  best  fitted  for  the  contest;  the  struggle  would  still  be 
carried  on,  with  wages  and  profits  reduced  to  a  minimum  and  the  sur- 
vivors would  not  necessarily  be  those  who  for  the  good  of  humanity 
ought  to  survive. 

"The  survival  of  the  fittest,"  says  Drummond  in  his  "  Ascent  of  Man,"  "  of  course 
does  not  mean  the  survival  of  the  strongest;  it  means  the  survival  of  the  adapted — 
the  survival  of  the  most  fitted  to  the  circumstances  which  surround  it.  A  fish 
survives  in  the  water,  when  a  leaking  ironclad  goes  to  the  bottom,  not  because  it  is  the 
stronger  but  because  it  is  better  adapted  to  the  element  in  which  it  lives. ' ' 

Professor  Huxley  says  that  those  survive  who  ' '  are  best  fitted  to  cope 
with  circumstances. ' ' 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


While  conceding  that  such  a  struggle  has  been  raging  it  is  denied  by 
any  able  economists  and  scientists  that  the  best  types  of  plant  and 
animal  life  are  necessarily  produced  by  it.  It  is  contended  that  such 
warfare  has  perpetuated  the  existence  of  many  inferior  forms  of  life  and 
prevented  the  development  and  growth  of  those  most  beneficial  to  man. 
If  it  should  be  conceded,  however,  that  free  trade  is  based  on  this  "natural 
law,"  or  that  the  "laws  of  nature"  are  given  full  force  under  free  com- 
petition, it  does  not  follow  that  it  should  be  accepted  as  a  basis  of  an 
economic  policy,  or  that  it  affords  to  man  the  best  means  of  promoting 
the  material  development  and  progress  of  the  world  or  of  separate  nations; 
either  does  it  follow  that  protection  is  unscientific  and  therefore  to  be 
rejected.  This  brings  us  to  a  consideration  of  the  scientific  basis  of  pro- 
tection. While  the  scientific  world  recognizes  the  principle  of  "natural 
.selection,"  that  is  selection  brought  about  by  purely  physical  laws,  yet 
there  is  another  principle  known  as  "human  selection,"  called  by  some 
artificial  selection,"  accomplished  through  the  intellectual  forces  of 
man  which  is  no  less  natural  because  it  is  human.  History  teaches  that 
the  progress  of  the  world  has  not  been  secured  through  the  let-alone  policy 
contended  for  by  the  advocates  of  free  trade,  but  that  all  advancement  in 
civilization  and  all  improvements  for  the  benefit  of  man,  have  been  made 
in  proportion  as  man  himself  has  exercised  dominion  over  the  forces  of 
nature. 

During  the  age  of  man  the  same  animals  and  plants  have  been  found 
to  exist  with  no  perceptible  change  under  the  law  stated  by  Mr.  Darwin. 
We  have  the  wild  horse,  the  wild  goat,  the  wild  boar  and  the  buffalo.  In 
plant  life  we  find  the  crab-apple,  the  wild  berries,  the  wild  grapes  and 
wild  flowers.  But  when  we  come  to  consider  the  rapid  improvements 
and  development  of  plant  and  animals,  we  find  that  it  has  been  due  not 
to  "natural  selection,"  but  to  "human  selection,"  which  is  defined  by  the 
Century  Dictionary  as  follows: 

Artificial  selection  which  means  agency  in  modifying  the  principles  and  so  chang- 
ing results  of  natural  selections.  .  .  .  This  has  been  going  on,  more  or  less  sys- 
tematically, since  man  has  domesticated  animals  or  cultivated  plants  for  his  own 
benefit.  Such  selection  may  be  unconscious  or  methodical.  It  ha's  constantly  tended 
to  the  latter,  which  is  now  systematically  conducted  on  a  large  scale,  and  has  resulted 
in  nnmberless  creations  of  utility  or  of  beauty,  or  of  both,  which  would  not  have 
existed  had  the  animals  and  plants,  thus  improved,  been  left  to  themselves— that  is,  to 
the  operation  of  natural  selection.  Examples  of  artificial  selection  are  seen  in  the 
breeding  of  horses  for  speed,  bottom  or  .strength,  or  for  the  combinatiou  of  these 
qualities;  of  cattle  for  beef  or  milk;  of  sheep  for  mutton  or  wool;  ...  in  the 
cultivation  of  cereals,  fruits  and  vegetables,  to  improve  their  respective  qualities  and 
increase  their  yield;  and  of  flowers,  to  increase  their  beauty  and  fragrance. 

The  most  beautiful  and  fragrant  flowers,  the  richest  fruits,  the  mo.st 
valuable  and  useful  animals,  the  best  varieties  of  wheat  and  grain,  and 
all  improvements  which  we  know  in  plants  and  animals,  have  come  from 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


artificial  selection.  Withdraw  the  care,  protection  and  influence  of  man 
from  any  one  of  these,  and  subject  them  to  the  influences  of  the  law  of 
"the  survival  of  the  fittest,"  and  they  would  either  perish  or  return  to 
their  original  and  wild  state.  It  matters  not  whether  we  call  the  efforts 
of  man  so  exerted,  of  a  "natural"  or  "artificial"  character.  It  is  found 
that  the  evolution  of  man — his  education,  development  and  improvement 
— has  arisen  from  the  protecting,  controlling  and  governing  power  of  man 
himself.  It  has  been  through  ordinances  of  man  that  societies  have  been 
formed,  governments  established,  peace  preserved,  persons  and  property 
protected,  and  the  brutal  propensities  of  man  softened  or  eradicated. 

Professor  Huxley,  in  his  article  on  "Struggle  for  Existence,"  said: 

Society  like  art  is  a  part  of  nature,  but  it  is  convenient  to  distinguish  those  parts 
of  nature  in  which  man  plays  the  part  of  immediate  cause  as  something  apart ;  and, 
therefore,  society,  like  art,  is  usefully  to  be  considered  as  distinct  from  nature.  It  is 
more  desirable  aud  even  necessary,  to  make  this  di.stinction,  since  society  differs  from 
nature  in  having  a  definite  moral  object  ;  whence  it  comes  about  that  the  course  shaped 
I)y  the  ethical  man,  the  member  of  society  or  citizen — necessarily  ruuscounter  to  that 
which  the  non-ethical  man — the  primitive  savage,  or  man  as  a  member  of  the  animal 
kingdom— tends  to  adopt.  The  latter  fights  out  the  struggle  for  existence  to  the 
bitter  end,  like  any  other  animal  ;  the  former  devotes  his  best  energies  to  the  object 
of  setting  limits  to  the  struggle. 

The  history  of  civilization— that  is  of  society— is  the  record  of  the  attempts  which 
the  human  race  has  made  to  escape  from  this  position  (i.  e.,  the  struggle  for  existence 
in  which  those  who  were  best  fitted  to  cope  with  their  circum.stances,  but  not  the 
best  in  any  other  sense,  survive).  The  first  men  who  substituted  the  state  of  mutual 
peace  for  that  of  mutual  war,  whatever  the  motive  which  impelled  them  to  take  that 
step,  created  society.  But  in  establishing  peace,  they  obviously  put  a  limit  upon  the 
struggle  for  existence.  Between  the  members  of  that  society,  at  any  rate,  it  was  not 
to  be  pursued  a  VoiUrance.  And  of  all  the  successive  shapes  which  society  has  taken, 
that  most  nearly  approaches  perfection  in  which  war  of  individual  against  individual 
is  most  strictly  limited.' 

Histor>-  teaches  us  that  the  development  of  man  from  barbarism  to 
civilization  ;  the  growth  of  society  from  the  family  and  tribe  to  organized 
governments;  the  control  of  man  over  man,  from  the  exercise  of  brute 
force  to  an  intelligent  and  patriotic  obedience  to  positive  law;  the 
growth  of  language  from  rude  w-ords  to  beautiful  and  harmonious  speech ; 
the  development  of  reading,  writing  and  those  means  by  which  man 
expresses  to  others  his  ideas,  sentiments,  feelings  and  affections;  the 
growth  of  religious  sentiment  and  ideas  from  idolatry,  to  a  belief  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  and  devotion  to  the  Christian  religion,  are 
all  phases  of  that  system  of  evolution  which,  through  fluctuating 
periods,  mark  the  moral  and  intellectual  development  of  man. 

Whatever  may  be  the  great  moving  cause  which  has  impelled  man  to 
attain  the  high  eminence  which  he  now  occupies,  it  is  quite  certain 
that  it  has  not  been  by  yielding  to  the  blind  fate  of  nature  and  permitting 

'  Nineteenth  Century,  February  iS,  i8SS. 


Civiliza- 
Jes  the 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


unconscious  selection  to  shape  his  destiny  and  work  out  the  problem  of 
development;  but  it  has  been  by  conscious  and  intelligent  selection,  by 
refusing  to  let  things  take  their  own  course.  This  is  found  to  apply  to 
every  department  of  human  life.  The  stigma  which  is  attempted  to  be 
cast  upon  the  policy  of  protection  by  defining  it  as  an  "artificial"  means 
of  developing  industries,  and  as  placing  restrictions  on  "natural  law," 
should  be  a  reflection  on  the  intelligence  of  any  economist  who  resorts  to 
such  distinctions.  Under  the  principle  involved  in  this  distinction  the 
Id  horse  is  the  "natural"  horse;  he  is  as  nature  made  him,  but  when 
tamed,  domesticated  and  broken  he  passes  to  an  "artificial"  state.  The 
savage  man,  in  his  barbarous  condition,  is  the  "natural"  man,  biit  when 
educated,  Christianized,  socialized  and  developed  by  training,  culture  and 
refining  influences,  he  becomes  the  "artificial"  man.  So  our  whole  fabric 
of  society  and  civilization  is  "artificial,"  yet  still,  it  is  not  to  be  con- 
demned or  rejected. 

This  distinction  has  formed  one  of  the  chief  humbugs  of  the  Man- 
chester school  in  its  efforts  to  claim  for  its  creed  the  dignity  of  a 
"science"  and  to  command  the  endorsement  of  scholars  and  teachers. 
The  question  whether  or  not  protectionists  are  obstructing  the  free  opera- 
tion of  "natural  laws,"  or  preventing  the  occurrence  of  what  would  hap- 
pen if  they  kept  their  hands  off,  is  entirely  irrelevant.  The  sole  measure 
of  the  wisdom  or  folly  of  protective  legislation,  must  be  found  in  its  eft'ect 
on  the  social  and  material  welfare  of  nations.  Protectionists  have  not 
permitted  the  question  to  be  determined  by  dogmatic  assumptions,  but 
the>'  point  to  the  experience  of  nations  to  demonstrate  thew^isdom  of  their 
polic^-.  History  teaches  that  the  material  development  and  prosperity  of 
nations,  and  the  elevation  of  the  masses,  have  been  attained  through 
those  fiscal  regulations  which  have  placed  limits  and  restrictions  on  the 
warfare  of  competition,  through  which  one  nation  is  able  to  supplant  and 
destroy  the  industries  of  another.  Since  it  has  been  made  possible 
through  economic  conditions  for  one  nation  to  maintain  and  build  up  a 
system  of  manufacturing  by  undermining  and  supplanting  the  industries  of 
another,  it  is  found  that  the  wide  extension  and  development  of  domestic- 
resources  and  industries  throughout  the  world  have  resulted  from  those 
barriers  which  have  shielded  them  from  invasion  and  attack,  fostered, 
encouraged  and  stimulated  industrial  life,  and  afforded  opportunities  for 
employment  and  the  investment  of  capital  which  otherwise  could  not 
have  existed. 

The  Malthdsian  Theory  of  Population. 

It  should  be  noted  in  tracing  the  origin  of  the  "scientific"  basis  of 
free  trade,  that  it  did  not  arise  from  a  study  of  the  Darwinian  theory  of 
"the  survival  of  the  fittest"  by  the  British  economists;  but  that  Chark- 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 

Darwin  discovered  the  essential  principle  of  his  law  of  "natural  selection" 
by  reading  the  economic  writings  of  Thomas  Robert  Malthus.     He  says : 

In  October,  1S3S,  that  is,  fifteen  months  after  I  had  begun  my  systematic  inquiry, 
I  happened  to  read  for  amusement  "  Malthus  on  Population,"  and  being  well  pre- 
pared to  appreciate  the  struggle  for  existence  which  everywhere  goes  on,  from  long 
continued  observations  of  the  habits  of  animals  and  plants,  it  at  once  struck  me  that 
under  these  circumstaiices  favorable  variations  would  tend  to  be  preserved  and  unfavor- 
able ones  to  be  destroyed.  The  result  of  this  would  be  the  formation  of  new  species. 
Here,  then,  I  had  at  last  got  a  theory  by  which  to  work.' 

The  writings  of  Dr.  Malthus  exerted  a  wider  influence  in  formulating 
the  theoretical  principles  of  free  trade,  than  those  of  any  other  English- 
man. In  1798  he  published  his  first  essay  on  Population,  in  which  he 
announced  the  principle  that  population  tends  to  increase  faster  than  the 
means  of  subsistence.      He  said: 

This  constant  effort  as  constantly  tends  to  subject  the  lower  classes  of  society  to 
distress,  and  prevents  any  permanent  amelioration  of  their  condition  .  .  .  The  num- 
ber of  laborers  also  being  above  the  proportion  of  the  work  in  the  market,  the  price 
of  labor  nmst  tend  toward  a  decrease  ;  while  the  price  of  provisions  would  at  the  same 
time  tend  to  rise. 

Thev  [the  laborers]  must  at  all  events  be  reduced  to  live  upon  the  hardest  fare  and 
on  the  smallest  quantity .'' 

Speaking  of  the  ability  of  society  to  elevate  the  condition  of  the 
masses,  he  said :  '  'To  remove  the  wants  of  the  lower  classes  of  society  is 
indeed  an  arduous  task.  The  truth  is  that  the  pressure  of  distress  on 
this  part  of  the  commtmity  is  an  evil  so  deeply  seated  that  no  human 
ingenuity  can  reach  it.  "  ^ 

In  his  second  essay  published  in  1803  he  states  the  general  checks 
that  tend  to  keep  down  population.  These  he  divides  into  two  classes: 
(i)  preventive  checks,  which  include  those  restraints  which  man  imposes 
upon  himself  to  prevent  the  propagation  of  the  species;  (2)  positive 
checks,  which  he  enumerates  as  "all  unwholesome  occtipations,  extreme 
poverty,  bad  nursing  of  children,  great  towns,  excesses  of  all  kinds,  the 
whole  train  of  common  diseases,  epidemics,  wars,  pestilence,  plague  and 
famine. ' '  ' 

Despite  the  kernel  of  truth  that  this  theory  contains,  it  has  proved  a 
fruitful  source  of  error.  While  the  growth  of  population,  if  unrestrained, 
may  tend  to  press  on  the  means  of  subsistence,  the  preventive  check 
consequent  upon  the  high  standard  of  living  has  been  so  effective  among 
civilized  races  and  the  increase  of  productive  power  has  been  so  great  that 
the  pessimistic  forebodings  of  Malthus  and  his  followers  have  been  proved 
by  experience  to  be  without  foundation.  As  a  statement  of  a  tendency 
which  if  not  counteracted  by  opposite  tendencies  may  produce  certain 


1  Ufe  of  Darwin.  Vol.  I.,  p.  83. 
lud  27.        3id.,  p.  35.        <Id.,ch.  ii. 


Co.'s  edition, 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


results,  the  theory  of  Malthus  properly  has  a  place  in  economic  science, 
but  as  a  description  of  actual  conditions  it  is  utterly  misleading.  Malthus 
himself  exaggerated  its  importance  and  subsequent  writers  by  misap- 
plications and  unwarrantable  deductions  obscured  the  element  of  truth 
that  it  contained. 

The  question  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  with  a 
certain  school  of  theoretical  writers  was,  how  to  prevent  the  increase  in 
population,  while  at  the  close  of  the  same  century  the  question  is,  how 
can  man  be  distributed  over  the  earth ;  how  can  the  natural  resources 
and  richness  of  the  world  best  be  utilized  and  developed ;  how  can  he 
most  surely  be  provided  with  the  means  of  employment,  through  which  to 
purchase  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life?  That  the  world  is  large 
enough,  and  its  resources  sufficient  if  properly  utilized,  to  furnish  an 
abundance  for  all-,  there  cannot  be  the  slightest  question.  This  principle 
has  been  fully  recognized  by  the  school  of  protectionists,  which  seeks  to 
elevate  the  masses  of  humanity,  to  dignify  labor  and  to  provide  for  the 
wants  and  necessities  of  life,  by  the  opening  of  mines,  the  building  of 
factories,  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  diversifying  indu.stries  and  all  of 
those  means  by  which  nature  is  made  to  give  up  her  treasures  in  response 
to  the  industry  of  man. 

The  Economic  Man. 

The  charge  has  often  been  made  by  protectionists  that  the  theory  of 
free  trade  had  its  origin  in  unreal  and  imaginary  conditions,  while  the 
doctrine  of  protection  was  drawn  from  the  experience  of  nations  and  from 
the  actual  practice  of  man.  Free  trade  has  been  conceded  by  eminent 
economists  advocating  its  principles  to  be  a  theory  based  on  assumptions. 
Attempting  to  prevent  the  social  side  of  the  question  from  being  con- 
sidered, by  confining  their  discussion  wholly  to  the  subject  of  sales,  they 
contended  that  the  only  problem  to  be  dealt  with  in  the  science  of  eco- 
nomics was  the  system  of  buying  and  selling  and  its  influence  on  the 
accumulation  of  wealth.  The  political  economy  of  the  Manchester  school 
was  written  wholly  in  the  intere.st  of,  and  from  the  standpoint  of,  tlu- 
Briti.sh  manufacturer  and  trader;  labor  was  regarded  as  a  tool  or  commodit\ 
to  be  bought  and  sold  in  the  market,  to  be  discarded  as  soon  as  its  uj-l- 
became  unprofitable.  In  support  of  the  theory,  the  Manchester  economists 
refused  to  enter  the  domain  of  historical  research,  and  to  gather  facts 
from  the  actual  experience  of  man  for  its  support.  In  fact,  at  the  time 
the  doctrines  of  free  trade  were  announced,  it  had  been  wholly  untried,  and 
its  effect  on  the  trade,  commerce  and  indu.stries  of  great  commercial 
nations,  when  put  to  the  test  of  sharp  competition,  was  unknown. 
Hence,  the  results  which  were  claimed  for  it  rested  wholly  in  prophec.w 
conjecture  and  predictions.  Not  only  the  results  which  were  to  follow 
were  assumed,  but  the  reasoning  was  predicated  on  imaginary  and  unreal 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 

conditions.  This  is  now  conceded  by  the  ablest  economists  of  the  world. 
Mr.  Bagehot,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  recent  free  trade  writers,  and  for 
a  long  time  editor  of  the  London  Economist,  conceded  that  the  "  economic 
man  ' '  was  an  imaginary  being.     He  says: 

rolitical  economy  deals  not  with  the  entire  real  man — a  man  answering  to  a  pure 
definition,  from  which  all  impairing  and  conflicting  elements  have  been  fined  away. 
The  abstract  man  of  this  science  is  engrossed  with  one  desire  only— the  desire  of 
possessing  wealth;  not,  of  course,  that  there  ever  was  a  being  who  always  acted  as 
that  desire  would  dictate,  any  more  than  any  one  thinks  there  is  in  nature  a  world 
without  friction  or  entirely  elastic  planes,  but  because  it  is  found  convenient  to  isolate 
the  effects  of  this  force  from  all  others.  The  effect  of  the  abstract  hypothesis  on  the 
neoassary  basis  of  statics  and  dynamics,  to  enable  us  so  see  the.  effect  of  the  single 
agent  '•  pressure,"  in  a  simple  way  and  free  from  the  repressing  and  obscuring  condi- 
tions which  exist  in  actual  nature;  and  in  the  same  way  the  use  of  the  primitive 
assumptions  of  political  economy  is  to  show  how  the  greatest  of  industrial  desires— 
the  desire  to  obtain  wealth— would  operate,  if  we  consider  it  as  operating  as  far  as  we 
possibly  can  by  itself.' 

The  advocates  of  protection  not  onl>'  refuse  to  confine  the  subject 

within  the  narrow  limits  laid  down  by  the   Manchester  school,  but  to 

accept  the  mode  of  treatment  prescribed,  holding  that,  it  being  impossible 

f  to  separate  man  from  his  social  conditions  and  those  causes  which  influ- 

1  ence  his  action  and  contribute  to  his  success  or  failure,  correct  conclusions 

could  not  be  reached  without  considering  him  in  his  relation  to  others  and 

as  a  member  of  society.     The  protectionists  dealt  with  man  as  they  found 

him  in  society  and  business,  considering  all  of  his  hopes,  aspirations,  and 

all  of  the  elements  which   necessarily   contribute  to   his  elevation    and 

[   improvement.     Instead  of  a  science  in  which  commodities  and  money 

'  transactions  were  alone  to  be  dealt  with,  the  protectionist  school  held  to 

that  time-honored  policy  which  made  man  the  chief  factor,  and  the  best 

means  of  improving  and  advancing  his  social,  intellectual  and  material 

,   welfare  the  prime  object.     The  application  of  free  trade  assumptions  to 

actual  practice  in  England  dirring  the  past  third  of  a  century  furnishes 

;    convincing  proof  of  the  errors  which  mere  visionary  theorists  conmiitted 

■  when  they  formulated  an  economic  policy  for  an  imaginary  man  in  an 

unreal  world. 

Personal  Liberty. 
A  careful  examination  of  the  scientific  phase  of  the  theory  of  free 
trade,  reveals  the  fact  that  the  law  of  the  "survival  of  the  fittest"  is  very 
.  far  reaching  and  is  the  controlling  principle  underlying  the  doctrine.  It 
was  a  belief  in  this  principle  which  attracted  them  to  the  "personal 
liberty- '  ideas  of  the  French  economists.  To  limit  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment simply  to  the  office  of  preserving  order,  punishing  crime  and 
enforcing  contracts  and  leaving   man   to  exercise  the   largest   possible 


I 


TAIUFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


individualism,  that  he  might  fight  out  the  bnttle  of  life  with  the  least 
possible  restrictions,  in  order  that  the  strong  might  survive  and  the  weak 
perish,  was  in  harmonj'  with  their  dogmas.  In  this  connection  arose 
their  idea  of  "the  freedom  of  contract,"  holding  that  a  man  should  be  left 
free  to  make  whatever  contracts  he  saw  fit,  to  sell  where  he  desired  and  to 
buy  where  he  desired,  and  also  to  hire  labor  as  cheaply  as  possible  or  upon 
whatever  terms  he  could  get  it,  and  to  run  his  own  business  in  his  own 
way;  while,  at  the  same  time,  this  applied  equally  to  labor,  which  should 
be  left  free,  but  without  the  right  to  resort  to  artificial  means,  such  as 
labor  unions  and  combinations,  to  obtain  the  market  rate  of  wages. 
Under  the  principle  contended  for,  the  hours  of  labor  should  not  be 
restricted,  there  should  be  no  interference  by  society  with  the  individual 
in  running  his  business.  The  manufacturer  should  be  permitted  to  run 
his  factory  all  night  if  he  desired,  to  hire  none  but  women  and  chil- 
dren, to  work  them  at  long  hours,  and  at  whatever  wages  they  could  be 
obtained;  he  should  also  be  permitted  to  provide  his  own  place  of 
employment,  however  dangerous,  insanitary  or  unwholesome,  leaving  the 
question  to  be  regulated  by  "natural  law,"  personal  interest  and  humane 
and  philanthropic  instincts.  Under  this  same  principle,  the  utmost 
freedom  should  be  accorded  to  emigration  and  immigration.  For  a 
nation  to  place  restriction  upon  the  natural  flow  of  population  from  one 
country  to  another,  would  be  to  resort  to"  artificial"  means.  Again, 
under  this  great  "natural  law"  no  industries  were  to  be  carried  on  unless 
they  could  survive  the  warfare  of  competition. .  Those  which  could 
survive  this  struggle  were  regarded  as  existing  under  conditions  imposed 
by  nature,  and  therefore  were  called  "natural"  industries;  while  on  the 
other  hand,  those  which  were  brought  into  life  and  maintained  by  protec- 
tive tariffs  or  artificial  means,  were  called  "unnatural"  or  "artificial" 
industries.  The  same  was  true  of  the  wage  rate.  It  was  held  that  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand  for  labor  imposes  a  natural  wage  rate  below  which 
wages  cannot  fall  and  above  which  they  cannot  rise;  and  that  it  isunwi.se 
to  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  "natural  law"  which  controls  and  fixes 
wages. 

Under  this  theory  the  miserable  and  degraded  condition  of  the  masses 
is  justified  by  an  appeal  to  the  ordinances  of  nature.  Under  the  opera- 
tion of  this  doctrine  of  the  "survival  of  the  fittest,"  out  of  a  population 
of  about  38,000,000  in  Great  Britain,  there  are  less  than  a  million  and  a 
half  of  taxpayers.  "Ninety  per  cent  of  the  people,"  says  Frederick 
Harrison,  "have  not  property  enough  to  load  on  a  cart;"  while  the 
shippers,  bankers  and  importers  have  been  growing  rich  in  foreign  trade, 
the  agricultural  interests  have  been  destroyed,  indu.stries  have  been  sup- 
planted, and  the  army  of  unemployed  and  beggars  has  yearly  increa.sed; 
and  yet  the  hard  and  miserable  life  of  nearly  30,000,000  of  their  people 
is  claimed  to  be  in   harmony  with  "the  laws  of  nature."     It  is   most 


ECONOMIC  Discvssioy. 


fortunate  for  the  world  that  Great  Britain,  through  its  blind  adherence  to 
free  trade,  has  afforded  during  the  past  thirty  years  an  example  of  the 
practical  operation  of  this  barbarous  policy. 

Yet,  it  is  persistently  urged  that  to  attempt  to  remedy  the  evils 
resulting  from  such  a  policy,  by  fiscal  regulations,  is  a  restriction  of 
individual  liberty  and  an  infringement  on  the  natural  rights  of  man. 

Under  protection  the  individual  exercises  the  utmcst  freedom  of 
action  in  all  the  pursuits  of  life.  The  government  does  not  attempt  to 
direct  the  individual  nor  to  compel  him  to  engage  in  any  pursuit 
which  he  does  not  desire  to  undertake;  neither  does  it  in  the  least 
restrict  him  in  the  occupation  which  he  may  pursue.  It  simply,  by 
shielding  its  own  citizens  from  the  injurious  effects  of  unfair  and  unequal 
competition,  improves  their  conditions  and  enlarges  their  opportunities 
for  employment  and  the  field  of  their  enterprises.  It  is  not  protection  to 
individuals,  but  protection  to  opportunities  for  individuals.  It  improves 
and  makes  more  certain  of  prosperity  the  conditions  under  which  the 
industrial  life  of  a  nation  is  carried  on.  It  is  like  security  of  title  and 
possession  of  property ;  the  certainty  of  peace  and  order  in  a  community. 

"The  distinction  between  paternalism  and  protection  is,"  says 
Gunton,  "that  a  paternal  policy  implies  doing  the  maximum  for  the 
individual,  while  a  protective  policy  implies  providing  the  individual 
with  the  maximum  opportunity  to  do  for  himself." 

The  only  restriction  imposed  by  a  protective  policj-  upon  the  indi- 
vidual consists  in  requiring  the  payment  of  a  duty  for  the  privilege  of 
importing  competing  commodities  from  foreign  countries.  This  right  is 
exercised  under  the  power  of  the  government,  conferred  by  the  people 
through  the  Constitution,  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations  and 
to  provide  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  country.  There  are  no  restric- 
tions upon  exports;  the  markets  of  the  world  are  as  open  and  accessible, 
so  far  as  legislation  is  concerned,  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
as  they  are  to  those  of  any  other  country.     David  A.  Wells  says: 

The  highest  right  of  property  is  the  right  to  exchange  it  for  other  property^  .  . 
Both  slavery  and  artificial  restrictions  or  prohibitions  of  exchanges  denj"  the  individual 
the  right  to  use  the  product  of  his  labor  according  to  his  own  pleasure,  or  what  may 
seem  to  him  the  best  advantage.  .  .  Free  exchange  between  man  and  man,  or  .what 
is  the  same  thing,  free  trade,  is  therefore  action  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of 
nature.' 

Although  this  proposition,  which  is  a  fair  statement  of  free  trade,  is 
laid  down  as  of  general  application,  it  applies  only  to  international  or 
foreign  exchanges.  The  fallacies  involved  in  the  foregoing  proposi- 
tions are  found  in  an  erroneous  conception  of  civil  liberty,  nattn-al  rights 
of  individuals,  the  true  functions  of  governments,  and  what  constitutes 

1  Article  ou  Free  Trade,  Johnson's  Universal  Eucj-clopedia. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


justice.  In  every  proposition  stated,  the  interests  and  rights  of  two 
parties  must  be  considered,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  sound  conclusion;  ( i ) 
The  individuals;  (2)  the  public. 

The  rights  of  every  citizen  of  a  free  government  must  be  considered 
in  his  relation  to  others.  He  is  not  only,  in  his  participation  in  the 
affairs  of  the  community,  one  of  the  governors,  but  he  is  also  one  of  the 
governed.  His  condition  as  a  member  of  society  is  one  of  dependence 
and  obligation.  Free  traders  in  presenting  the  proposition  stated,  fall 
into  error  by  considering  only  the  individual  and  ignoring  the  public. 
What  then  is  "liberty?" 

We  are  able  to  define  "civil  liberty"  (Century  Dictionary)  as  that: 

•  Which  implies  the  subjection  of  an  individual  member  of  the  community  to  laws 
imposed  by  the  community  as  a  whole,  but  it  does  not  imply  the  assent  of  each  indi- 
vidual to  those  laws.  An  individual  has  civil  liberty  if  he  is  a  member  of  a  comnnniitv 
which  possesses  such  liberty  and  is  in  the  enjoyment  of  such  rights  which  the  laws  of 
the  community  guarantee  him. 

This  is  the  only  kind  of  liberty  a  man  in  society  can  enjoy.  L,ibertj' 
in  the  abstract  or  absolute  freedom  of  action,  cannot  be  exercised  bj^  man 
either  in  .society  or  in  nature.  From  the  very  nature  of  things  re- 
strictions arising  from  physical  or  positive  laws,  place  limits  on 
his  actions.  Restrictions,  then,  are  in  accord  with  physical  laws  and 
are  necessary  under  the  laws  of  society  and  governments.  Hence,  it 
follows  that,  as  an  abstract  principle,  restrictions  on  the  acts  of  indi- 
viduals in  societ}'  are  not  neces.sarilj'  to  be  associated  with  human 
slavery. 

A  citizen  of  a  free  government  necessarily  lives  under  a  system  of 
restrictions  upon  his  actions,  and  yet,  he  enjo3-s  civil  liberty.  He  is  a 
freeman;  he  is  a  sovereign ;  he  is  a  lawmaker;  he  is  clothed  with  the 
highest  and  most  exalted  authority  of  citizenship,  and  enjoys  the  most 
enlarged  private  rights,  yet  the  liberty  he  enjoys  is  liberty  regulated  li>' 
law.  The  independence  he  exercises  is  an  independence  in  certain 
things  and  within  a  circle  and  botinds  which  cannot  be  overstepped.  He 
is  free  to  do  only  that  which  is  permitted  by  law.  Freedom  to  assail  tlic 
property,  employment  and  occupations  of  others  with  impunity,  has  never 
been  contended  for  by  any  excepting  anarchists  and  free  traders.  Liberty 
is,  then,  the  right  to  do  that  which  is  permitted  by  the  law  of  the  land. 
Free  moral  action  consists  in  doing  that  which  is  permissible  by  divine 
law.  We  are  living  in  a  reign  of  human  and  divine  law.  Our  interests, 
rights  and  property  rest  upon  these  laws  for  their  exi.stence  and  perpet- 
uity. Forms  of  government  are  instituted  for  the  benefit  of  man  as  an 
individual,  and  for  man  as  a  member  of  .society ;  consequently  two  interests 
at  once  arise;  the  interest  of  the  individual  himself,  and  the  interest  of 
all  the  people  in  common,  known  as  the  public  welfare.  When  the 
interests  of  the  individual  come  in  conflict  with  the  public,  the  public 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 

welfare  must  prevail.  The  science  of  government  and  jurisprudence,  as 
recognized  b}'  the  greatest  philosophers*  statesmen  and  jurists  of  modern 
times,  is  based  upon  the  maxim, 

"Sal us  Populi  Suprema  Lex."  ' 

"  That  regard  be  had  for  pubHc  welfare,  is  the  highest  law." 

There  is  au  implied  assent  on  the  part  of  every  member  of  society  that  his  own 
individual  welfare  shall,  in  cases  of  necessity,  yield  to  that  of  the  community;  and  that 
his  property,  liberty  and  life  shall,  under  certain  circumstances,  be  placed  in  jeopardy 
or  even  sacrificed  for  the  public  good.' 

This  maxim  is  of  such  universal  application,  and  is  so  necessary  to 
the  existence  of  republican  institutions,  that  it  has  become  the  basis 
upon  which  the  whole  social  fabric  of  modern  civilization  rests.  It  is 
under  this  and  by  this,  that  the  private  rights  of  individuals  are  meas- 
ured and  determined.  When  we  speak  of  the  private  rights  of  individ- 
uals, we  mean  rights  which  they  po.ssess  and  enjoy  in  obedience  to  this 
higher  law.  Private  rights,  then,  are  simply  relative  rights  to  all  those 
spoken  of  as  absolute  rights.  A  citizen  may  be  required  to  surrender  his 
life  through  the  performance  of  military  duty,  in  defence  of  his  country. 
The  right  of  personal  liberty  to  move  about  and  go  where  he  wills,  is 
restricted  by  compelling  him  to  serve  in  the  army,  re.spond  to  subpcenas, 
perform  jury  duty  and  other  services  for  the  benefit  of  society. 

The  right  to  possess,  exchange  and  enjoy  private  property  implies 
obedience  to  the  same  higher  law.  It  does  not  help  the  matter  to  assert 
that  the  exchange  of  private  property  is  necessary  for  man's  existence. 
An  exchange  of  property  is  not  prohibited.  A  citizen  is  simply  required 
to  make  exchanges  in  conformity  with  a  public  policy  and  in  such  a  way  as 
not  to  conflict  with  the  best  interests  of  society.  It  is  the  sheerest  nonsense 
to  contend  that  there  is  an  inherent  right  existing  in  a  citizen  to  do  with 
his  property  as  he  sees  fit,  regardless  of  the  public  good.  The  possession 
and  existence  of  property  is  made  pos.sible  by  society.  Man  in  a  savage 
state,  making  his  way  under  the  "natural  law,"  was  compelled  to  defend 
his  possessions  by  sheer  brute  force.  When  he  becomes  a  member  of 
society,  not  only  his  person,  his  liberty,  but  his  property  is  protected  and 
its  possession  and  enjoyment  are  made  secure.  Man  neither  in  a  savage 
state  nor  in  society  is  permitted  to  hold  property  excepting  by  the 
con-sent  of  his  fellows.  The  right  to  property,  then,  is  enjoyed  only 
under  conditions  imposed  by  the  power  which  protects  and  makes  its 
existence  and  enjoyment  possible.  Its  disposition  at  home  is  regulated 
by  the  government.  This  could  not  be  less  so,  simply  becau.se  a  citizen 
desired  to  exchange  it  in  a  foreign  country  for  property  the  bringing  of 
which  into  his  own  country  might  be  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  the 
whole  people. 

1  Bacon's  Max.,  Reg.  12.        2Broom's  Legal  Maxims,  Chap.  l. 


fare  the 
highest 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  .STATES. 


The  verj-  reverse  of  the  proposition  contended  for  bj'  free  traders  is 
true.  Instead  of  the  right  of  fr*  exchange  being  an  "inherent  right  or 
necessary  adjunct  to  the  right  of  propert}-, ' '  it  would  be  much  more  nearly 
correct  to  say  that  an  inherent  quality  of  all  property  is  its  liability  to 
taxation. 

The  "inherent  right"  exists  in  society  to  place  such  limitations  on 
the  exchange  of  property  as  the  public  good  requires. 

Neither  does  the  security  of  private  property  necessarily  consist  in 
the  right  of  the  freedom  of  exchange.  It  is  the  conditions  and  circum- 
stances under  which  men  live,  brought  about  by  the  operation  of  w-ise 
laws  that  make  life  and  liberty  more  secure.  It  is  also  the  conditions 
under  which  the  business  operations  of  the  people  are  carried  on,  which 
bring  the  greatest  security  to  industry  and  property. 

If  the  market  in  which  a  person  sells  his  goods  is  handed  over  to 
strangers  and  he  is  deprived  by  unjust  and  unequal  competition  of  for- 
eigners of  the  opportunity  to  sell ;  if  in  order  to  meet  and  combat  such 
competition,  the  producer  is  compelled  to  work  for  less  than  sufEcient 
wages  to  provide  the'necessaries  and  comforts  for  himself  and  family;  if 
by  such  competition,  producers  are  driven  out  of  business,  their  fortunes 
wrecked,  and  they  become  reduced  to  bankruptcy  and  are  left  to  carry  on 
an  unequal  and  unjust  struggle  against  the  pauper  and  degraded  labor  of 
foreign  countries,  how  can  it  be  said  that  security  of  private  propert\- 
exists,  although  the  utmost  freedom  in  exchange  of  commodities  is  per- 
mitted? Instead  of  freedom  of  exchange  bringing  security  to  private- 
property,  it  may  result  in  its  destruction.  It  is  then,. through  protective 
tariff  legislation,  by  a  restriction  being  placed  on  foreign  exchanges,  that 
the  greatest  security  to  private  property  is  attained.  The  security  of 
private  property,  then,  must  consist  in  those  economic  conditions  under 
which  capital  and  labor  are  most  permanently,  uninterruptedly  ami 
profitably  employed,  and  under  which  the  largest  industrial  development 
of  a  country  can  be  secured  and  the  greatest  wealth,  progress  and  pros- 
perity attained. 

What  right  has  a  consumer  living  on  a  fixed  income,  or  engaged 
in  an  occupation,  or  so  situated  that  he  would  profit  by  the  system  of  free 
trade,  to  demand  that  the  government  repeal  its  protective  laws  and  sub- 
ject the  labor  and  industries  of  the  country  to  the  ruinous  competition  of 
foreigners,  until  he  first  shows  that  it  would  be  justified  by  public  policy, 
and  that  the  greatest  good  would  come  to  the  greatest  number  by  the 
adoption  of  free  trade?  Unless  this  is  established,  he  plays  the  part  of  a 
highwayman  who  seizes  a  team  by  the  bits  and  demands  the  driver's 
pocket-book.  The  doctrine  of  the  right  of  free  exchange,  or  to  buy  where 
one  can  buy  the  cheapest,  rests  upon  the  same  principle  of  individual  liberty 
as  the  right  to  commit  any  other  act  affecting  the  propert>-  and  rights  of 
others.     This   brings  us   to   a   justification  of    the  proposition   so   long 


ECUN03IIC  DISCUSSION. 


contended  for  bj'  protectionists,  that  protection  is  not  to  be  decided  bj'  dog- 
matic assumptions,  but  is  a  question  of  public  policy-  to  be  determined  by 
each  government  in  accordance  with  those  economic  conditions  under 
which  their  material  welfare  can  most  surely  be  promoted. 

Cosmopolitanism. 

Another  error  which  the  Manchester  school  committed,  is  found  in 
the  assumption  that  the  nations  of  the  world  are  one  family;  that  a 
nation  in  framing  its  economic  policy  should  not  only  consider  what  is 
good  for  its  own  people,  but  that  which  is  beneficial  to  other  nations  as 
well.  Contending  that  a  destructive  warfare  is  constantly  raging  between 
nations  in  the  efforts  of  the  strong  to  supplant  the  weak,  they  advise 
nations  to  submit  themselves  to  the  inevitable  and  raise  no  defences  to 
preserve  their  industries  from  destruction.  It  also  involves  the  assump- 
tion that  the  highest  destiny  of  man  can  most  surely  be  reached  through 
world,  instead  of  national  development.  To  say  the  least,  this  is  a  very 
kind  and  beautiful  doctrine  to  be  put  forth  by  Englishmen,  especially  when 
they  have  vigorously  attempted  for  centuries  to  cripple  ana  destroy  the 
commerce  and  industries  of  all  other  countries,  by  every  method  possible. 
A  very  able  refutation  of  this  contention  may  be  found  in  "Political 
Science  and  Constitutional  Law,"  by  John  W.  Burgess,  as  follows: 

The  state  cauiiot,  however,  be  organized  from  the  beginning  as  world-state. 
Mankind  cannot  j'et  act  through  so  extended  and  ponderous  an  organization  and  man)- 
must  be  the  centuries,  and  probably  cycles,  before  it  can.  Mankind  must  first  be 
organized  politically  by  portions  before  it  can  be  organized  as  a  whole.  I  have  already 
pointed  out  the  natural  conditions  and  forces  which  direct  the  political  apportionments 
of  mankind.  I  have  demonstrated  that  they  work  towards  the  establishment  of  the 
national  state.  The  national  state  is  the  most  perfect  organization  which  has  3-et  been 
attained  in  the  civilization  of  the  world  for  the  interpretation  of  the  human  conscious- 
ness tf  right.  It  furnishes  the  best  vantage  ground  yet  to  be  attained  for  the  contem- 
plation of  the  purpose  of  the  sojourn  of  mankind  upon  earth.  The  national  state  must 
be  developed  everywhere  before  the  world-state  can  appear.' 

Speaking  of  the  duty  which  the  people  of  one  government  owe  to 
those  of  another,  he  says: 

Every  state  has,  of  course,  a  duty  to  the  world.  It  must  contribute  its  just  share 
to  the  civilization  of  the  world.  In  order  to  discharge  this  duty  it  nmst  open  itself  as 
fully  as  is  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  its  own  existence  and  just  interests  to 
commerce  of  intercourse,  ingress  and  egress;  but  it  is  under  no  obligation  to  the  world 
to  go  beyond  these  limits.  It  cannot  be  demanded  of  a  state  that  it  sacrifice  itself  to 
some  higher  good.  It  cannot  fulfil  its  mission  in  this  way.  It  represents  itself  the 
highest  good.  It  is  the  highest  entity.  The  world  has  as  yet  no  organization  into 
■which  a  state  may  merge  its  existence.  The  world  is  as  yet  only  an  idea.  It  can  j 
no  passports  which  a  state  is  bound  to  accept.  The  duty  of  a  state  to  a  world  is  a  duty 
of  which  the  state  itself  is  the  highest  interpreter.  The  highest  duty  of  a  state  is  to 
preserve  its  own  existence,  its  own  healthful  growth  and  development.  ^ 
'  Vol.  I.,  pp.  8s-6.       2  Id.  pp.  43-4. 


National 

"acHfia-d 
in  the  ill- 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


If  then  it  is  found  that  the  end  to  be  attained  can  more  surely  be 
reached  through  the  policy  of  protection,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  every 
citizen  to  subscribe  to  this  policy  and  aid  in  its  maintenance.  Little  can 
be  added  to  the  above  quotation,  so  ably  has  its  author  met  and  over- 
thrown this  free  trade  assumption. 

The  present  means  of  advancing  the  welfare  of  man  is  by  .societies 
acting  through  organized  governments.  "Self-preservation  is  the  first  law 
of  nature, ' '  so  the  right  of  defence  with  nations  to  preserve  and  perpetuate 
their  existence,  is  the  highest  law.  It  was  under  this  theory  that  Adam 
Smith  defended  the  navigation  laws  of  England,  as  a  means  of  stimulating 
and  encouraging  ship  building,  the  training  of  seamen,  and  the  mainten- 
ance of  a  powerfid  navy  to  guard  and  protect  the  interests  of  the  realm 
and  the  rights  of  citizens  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  The  advantage  which 
a  nation  would  acquire  by  being  industrially  independent  in  time  of  war, 
was  one  of  the  reasons  piit  forth  in  the  early  history  of  the  United  States, 
to  justify  the  establishment  of  industries  under  protection.  It  is  also 
maintained  that  the  development  of  diversified  industries  which  increase 
the  wealth  and  promote  the  happiness  of  the  people,  also  add  to  the 
opulence  and  independence  of  the  nation.  It  certainly  requires  an  indul- 
gence in  very  extravagant  assumptions  to  establish  the  negative,  that  a 
nation  should  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  its  own  citizens,  in  legis- 
lating to  advance  their  commercial  and  industrial  interests,  as  well  as  to 
protect  their  persons  and  property. 

Artifici.'Vl  Industries. 

It  is  a  common  complaint  of  the  advocates  of  free  trade  that  the  policy 
of  protection  forces  into  existence  "artificial"  and  "unnatural"  indus- 
tries. Understanding  the  law  of  "the  .survival  of  the  fittest,"  as  being 
their  conception  of  "natural  law,"  we  are  better  able  to  understand  the 
meaning  of  this  charge  which  is  so  frequently  urged  against  the  protec- 
tive policy.  A  "natural"  industry  is  one  which  can  exist  only  under 
free  competition.  An  "artificial"  industry  is  one  which  is  established 
by,  and  owes  its  continuance  to  fiscal  regulations  which  protect  it  from 
destruction.  If  our  industries  are  "artificial"  and  exist  only  because  of 
this  support  or  protection  which  they  receive,  they  would  certainly  dis- 
appear when  subjected  to  the  '  'natural"  forces  of  free  competition.  It  is 
only  in  this  .sense  that  our  industries  are  "unnatural"  or  "artificial." 
That  there  are  certain  natural  conditions  which  determine  in  advance  the 
industries  which  shall  be  pursued  by  different. countries,  there  is  no  ques- 
tion, and  so  far  as  they  exist,  apart  from  the  principle  contended  for  by 
the  Manchester  economists,  they  are  fully  recognized  by  protectionists. 

Agriculture  is  carried  on  under  conditions.of  soil  and  climate  favor- 
able to  the  growth  of  a  great  variety  of  fruits,  vegetables  and  cereals. 
These  conditions  determine  for  a  nation  the  produce  of  the  soil  to  which 


ECOXOJ[ir  DISCISSION. 


their  energies  must  be  confined.  Those  products  like  tea,  coffee,  sugar, 
spices  and  tropical  fruits,  which  may  be  classed  as  luxuries,  are  confined 
to  a  few  favored  localities,  while  those  necessary  products  of  involuntary 
consumption  upon  which  man  relies  for  his  subsistence,  and  from  which 
the  masses  of  the  world  must  always  derive  their  food  supplies,  are 
universally  distributed  and  grow  luxuriantly  in  almost  every  soil  and 
climate  between  the  frigid  zones.  The  products  of  tropical  regions  grow 
in  great  abundance  with  little  human  effort.  The  excessive  heat  unfits 
those  regions  for  great  industrial  enterprises  requiring  arduous  and  inces- 
sant toil.  The  working  of  mines,  the  prosecution  of  manufacturing  enter- 
prises requiring  great  physical  exertion,  seek  temperate  regions  where 
great  results  can  be  accomplished  with  least  physical  exhaustion.  These 
natural  causes  determine  in  advance  the  industrial  life  of  nations,  and 
have  an  especial  application  to  those  products  which  depend  for  their 
profitable  growth  upon  the  elements  over  which  man  has  no  control. 

The  question,  however,  which  arises  between  protectionists  and  free 
traders,  relates  wholly  to  the  rewards  of  industry.  For  instance,  the 
State  of  Louisiana,  so  far  as  soil  and  climate  are  concerned,  is  as  well 
adapted  to  the  production  of  sugar,  as  Cuba  or  Brazil.  The  States  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  are  as  well  fitted  by  nature  for  the  production  of 
sugar  beets,  as  Germany  and  France.  Cuba  and  Brazil  can  produce  cane 
sugar  cheaper  than  it  can  be  produced  in  Louisiana  only  by  paying  less 
wages  to  the  labor  employed,  while  France  and  Germany  can  grow  beets 
and  convert  them  into  sugar  at  less  cost  than  similar  raw  sugar  can  be 
produced  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  only  by  paying  the  agricultural  laborer 
less  wages  than  the  farmers  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  Rice  can  be  pro- 
duced cheaper  in  China  than  in  South  Carolina,  for  the  same  reason. 

The  imposition  of  protective  tariffs  by  the  United  States  upon  the 
natural  products  of  soil  and  climate  is  not  to  force  or  stimulate  the  growth 
of  products  in  the  United  States  unsuited  to  natural  conditions,  but  solely 
to  provide  for  a  difference  in  wages  arising  from  conditions  of  civiliza- 
tion. If  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  design  of  the  Creator  of 
the  universe,  such  protective  legislation  is  fully  justified  upon  the  ground 
that  it  results  in  an  improved  condition  of  man,  enabling  labor  in  the 
United  States  to  be  better  rewarded,  better  educated,  better  housed  and 
clothed,  and  to  reach  a  higher  state  of  civilization.  If  such  condition  of 
humanity  is  the  purpose  of  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe,  protective 
legislation  is  in  harmony  with  divine  law. 

The  metals,  iron,  copper  and  lead,  are  found  in  abundance  on  every 
continent  and  in  almost  every  country.  Coal  beds  for  fuel  are  as  widely 
distributed.  Fuel  and  raw  material  are  universally  accessible  to  the 
people  of  all  countries.  The  United  States  has  iron  and  coal  distributed 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific.  To  prevent  our  Eastern  sea-boards  from 
being  supplied  with  these  materials  from  abroad,  is  not  for  the  purpose 


TAEIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


of  opening  industries  in  the  United  States  of  an  artificial  character,  hut 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  making  it  possible  for  the  American  miners  to 
receive  higher  wages  than  are  paid  to  the  miners  of  foreign  countries,  and 
to  contribute  to  the  general  prosperitj'  of  this  cou'ntrj'.  This  is  the  util- 
ization of  natural  products.  Mining  and  manufacturing,  in  so  far 
as  they  are  pursuits  in  which  the  capital  and  labor  of  a  country  may  be 
employed,  depend  wholly  for  their  existence  and  conduct  upon  the  direct 
efforts  of  man,  uninfluenced  by  soil  and  climate,  excepting  as  to  those 
special  localities  of  the  tropics  in  which  excessive  physical  exer- 
tion is  practically  prohibited  by  the  intense  heat.  Through  the  entire 
temperate  zone,  in  the  United  States,  Europe  and  Asia,  the  region 
most  densely  populated,  having  the  highest  civilization  and  the 
greatest  industrial  activity,  all  branches  of  manufacturing  are  equally 
favored  by  nature,  and  in  this  respect,  can  as  well  be  carried  on  in  one 
place  as  in  another.  The  free  trader  continues  to  harp  upon  obedience  to 
the  laws  of  nature  in  manufacturing  pursuits,  and  j-et,  no  Englishman  has 
favored  the  building  of  .silk  factories  where  raw  silk  is  produced  or  the 
removal  of  their  woolen  mills  to  Australia  and  the  Argentine  Republic, 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  great  sheep  ranches  of  the  world.  Neither 
have  they  suggested  the  removal  of  their  cotton  mills  to  cotton  growing 
districts  of  the  United  States.  English  manufacturers  have  never  paid  the 
slightest  attention  to  these  "natural  laws"  that  their  economists  have  so 
much  to  say  about,  but  have  Tsa-sed  their  industrial  supremacy  upon 
superior  machinery,  .skillful  and  efficient  labor  and  the  low  wages  of  their 
artisans.  England  by  nature  is  no  more  fitted  for  th€  manufacture  of 
cotton,  linen,  woolens,  the  metals  or  anything  else,  than  the  United 
States.  Whatever  advantages  she  possesses  are  wholly  acquired.  A 
superiority  based  on  the  degradation  of  humanity,  a  condition  of  com- 
mercial slavery  to  which  a  population  is  reduced  and  to  which  it  is 
eternally  chained,  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  God,  and  revolting  to  the 
better  sense  of  civilized  man.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world  more 
favored  and  set  apart  by  the  laws  of  nature,  for  an  extensive  diversity  of 
indu-stries,  than  the  United  States.  With  a  soil  and  climate  for  the  pro- 
duction of  cotton,  flax,  hemp,  jute  and  all  vegetable  fibres;  with  agricul- 
tural regions  adapted  to  the  raising  of  sheep  and  growing  of  the  finest 
wool;  with  coal  and  iron  universally  distributed  from  coast  to  coast;  with 
the  greate.st  water  powers  in  the  world ;  with  every  variety  of  agricultural 
products  which  grow  in  temperate  and  semi-tropical  regions,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  to  utilize  these  rich  possessions  is  a  violation  of  natural  law. 

Competition. 
Although  blessed  beyond  measure  with  natural  resources  for  indus- 
trial prosperity,  the  people  of  the  United  .States  labor  under  one  great  dis- 
advantage.      Through   nearly    a   century   of    industrial    evolution    and 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 

civilization  they  have  acquired  a  mode  of  living  and  a  wage  rate  which 
are  more  expensive  than  those  of  any  other  people  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 
It  costs  them  more  to  live,  because  they  live  better.  They  cannot  pay 
double  the  wages  paid  by  foreign  competitors  and  expose  themselves  to 
the  warfare  of  international  competition.  In  such  a  conflict  they  would 
be  the  weaker  party,  and  under  the  law  of  "the  survival  of  the  fittest" 
their  civilization  would  be  destroyed  and  their  industries  .supplanted — • 
unless  they  adopted  the  weapons  used  by  their  competitors,  namely,  less 
expensive  modes  of  living,  lower  wages  and  cheaper  productions.  This 
brings  us  to  the  gist  of  the  whole  controversy  between  protectionists  and 
free  traders.  There  is  no  dispute  over  what  would  happen  in  a  conflict 
between  such  unequal  combatants.  The  real  question  is,  would  it  be 
wise,  would  the  welfare  of  humanity  be  best  promoted  by  yielding  to  the 
consequences  and  inevitable  results  which  are  unquestionably  involved 
in  such  a  struggle  ?  The  advantages  to  a  people  of  healthy  competition 
are  not  involved  in  the  question,  as  pointed  out  by  Professor  George 
Gunton : 

The  chief  fallacy  underh-ing  the  doctrine  of  laissez  /aire  is  a  mistaken  notion 
regarding  the  nature  of  competition.  Because  competition  is  rivalr}'  between  con- 
tending units,  it  is  assumed  that  all  rivalry  is  competition,  and  hence  that  free 
competition  is  simply  an  unrestrained  struggle  for  existence.  As  we  have  alreadj- 
seen,  unrestrained  struggle  may  and  often  does  mean  repression  and  despotism  instead 
of  development  and  freedom.  It  is  entirely  true  that  competition  is  indispensable  to 
development,  but  in  order  to  have  competition  that  develops,  instead  of  a  struggle 
that  destroys,  rivalry  must  take  place  under  conditions  which  make  the  object  sought 
reasonably  possible  to  either  contestant.  There  can  be  no  advantageous  competition 
where  the  prize  is  impossible  to  one  and  certain  to  the  other.  Such  an  unequal  strug- 
gle, instead  of  developing  the  highest  possibilities  of  both  competitors,  inspires 
neither  contestant  to  do  his  best.  To  have  effective  competition,  the  contest  must  be 
of  such  a  character  as  to  compel  the  winner  and  inspire  the  loser  to  the  maximum 
degree  of  effort.  This  can  only  occur  when  the  contest  takes  place  between  approxi- 
mately equal  competing  units.  Competition  between  unequals  necessarily  tends  to 
crush  rather  than  develop  the  weaker,  although  he  possesses  all  the  potential  possi- 
bilities of  superiority.'  i 

This  proposition  is  so  ably  presented  by  Professor  Gunton'  that 
the  writer  takes  the  liberty  of  incorporati'ng  the  following  quotation,  to 
enable  the  reader  to  be  further  enlightened  by  this  distinguished  econo- 
mist: 

Whenever  a  struggle  for  industrial  supremacy  takes  place  between  producers  in 
countries  of  differing  degree  of  civilization,  one  of  two  things  must  necessarily 
occur ;  either  the  higher  must  descend  to  the  plane  of  the  lower,  or  the  lower  must 
ascend  to  the  plane  of  the  higher.  If  the  higher-paid  producer  descends  to  the  plane 
of  the  lower,  it  will  not  be  economic  convpeXKWon,  because  in  that  case,  the  low-wage 
products  will  be  sure  to  undersell  the  high-wage  products,  and  thus  enable  the 
inferior  to  succeed  against  the  superior.  In  such  a  struggle  there  is  nothing  to 
1  Principles  of  Social  Economics,  p.  293.        =  Id.,  pp.  333-5. 


Coynpeti- 
Hon  be- 

itneqitals. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


develop  the  best  in  the  higher,  but  everything  to  repress  it.  The  cheap-labor  com- 
petitor does  not  succeed  through  his  economic  superiorit\-,  but  solely  because  of  his 
social  inferiority.  Such  a  contest,  therefore,  is  contrary  to  all  conditions  of  economic 
competition.  Instead  of  being  a  contest  between  approximately  equal  competing 
units,  which  tends  to  develop  the  best  in  both,  it  is  an  unequal  struggle  in  which  the 
inferior  is  sure  to  prevail  against  the  superior. 

When  competition  takes  place  on  the  plane  of  the  higher- wage  level,  the  result  is 
ver}-  different.  In  such  a  contest,  whoever  succeeds  is  compelled  to  do  so  by  employ- 
ing superior  machinery,  and  that  reduces  the  cost  of  wealth  by  saving  instead  of 
cheapening  human  labor.  Every^  effort  of  the  lower  to  succeed  against  the  higher  bv 
such  means  necessarily  tends  to  develop  better  methods  of  production,  cheapen 
wealth  and  promote  social  progress  in  the  less  advanced  country,  even  if  it  fails  to 
undersell  competitors  in  a  foreign  market.  On  the  other  hand,  in  every  such  struggle 
the  high-wage  producer  is  compelled  to  make  efforts  to  still  further  develop  the 
wealth-cheapening  methods  in  the  most  advanced  countries.  Therefore  the  contest 
on  the  higher  plane  is  supremely  economic,  because  it  stimulates  the  best  in  both 
competitors,  guarantees  that  only  the  superior  shall  succeed,  and  in  so  doing,  helps 
rather  than  injures  the  inferior. 

As  a  means  of  preventing  the  injuries  resulting  front  the  competition 
stated  in  the  first  paragraph  and  preserving  the  healthful  rivalry 
described  in  the  second,  Professor  Gunton  recommends  a  resort  to  and 
very  clearly  points  out  the  necessity  of  protective  legislation : 

In  order,  therefore,  to  apply  the  doctrine  of  opportunity  laid  down  in  the  previous 
chapter,  and  to  establish  international  trade  upon  a  strictly  economic  basis,  it  is 
necessary  for  the  higher-wage  country  to  discriminate  against  the  products  of  the 
lower- wage  producer  to  the  full  extent  that  the  lower  wages  affect  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion, as  this  determines  the  competitive  status  of  the  commodity.  Thus  we  have  a 
truly  economic  basis  for  a  tariff  policy  that  shall  be  protective  -wKxyioMt  heing  pateriia/. 
A  tariff  policy  based  upon  this  principle  would  protect  the  superior  against  injury 
from  the  inferior,  without  afibrding  the  slightest  monopolistic  impediment  to  eco- 
nomic rivalry.  Instead  of  restricting  wholesome  competition,  this  would  simply  pro- 
tect the  competitive  opportunity  for  the  "  fittest  to  survive,"  the  test  of  fitness  always 
being  the  ability  to  furnish  low  priced  wealth  without  employing  low-priced  labor. 
Under  such  conditions  the  products  of  foreign  countries  could  never  undersell  those 
of  home  industry-,  except  when  the  lower  price  of  the  foreign  product  is  due  to  the  use 
of  superior  lahor-saviJig  and  not  to  \ahor-clieapeniiig  methods. 

W.A.GES. 

Understanding  the  principles  involved  in  the  foregoing  propositions, 
the  reader  will  readily  discover  how  protection  increases  wages.  The 
old  theories  contended  for  by  the  dogmatic  free  traders  have  quite  univer- 
sally been  discarded.  The  writers  of  the  Manchester  school  whose 
opinions  were  influenced  by  the  Malthusian  theory  of  population,  believed 
that  in  the  struggle  for  existence  wages  nmst  always  be  low  and  the  con- 
dition of  the  masses  most  miserable.  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  discussing  the 
question,  said: 

After  the  truths  brought  out  by  Mr.  Malthus  were  understood,  it  was  then  seen 
that  the  capabilities  of  increase  of  the  human  species  as  of  animal  nature  in  general 


ECOXOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


(being  far  greater  than  those  of  subsistence  under  any  except  unusual  circumstances), 
must  be,  and  are,  controlled  everywhere  else  by  one  of  two  limiting  principles— starva- 
tion or  prudence  and  continence.  That  under  the  operation  of  this  conflict,  the 
reward  of  ordinary  unskilled  labor  is  always  and  everywhere  (saving  temporary  varia- 
tions, and  rare  conjunctions  of  circumstances),  at  the  lowest  point  to  which  laborers 
will  consent  to  be  reduced,  the  point  below  which  they  will  not  choose  to  propagate 
their  species.  .  .  These  considerations  furnish  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  state  of 
extreme  poverty  in  which  the  majority  of  mankind  had  almost  everywhere  been  found 
without  suffering  any  inherent  necessity  in  the  case.' 

Francis  Wayland  said:  "When  the  wages  of  parents  are  bareh- 
sufficient  to  rear  two  children,  but  two  will  be  reared;  the  rest  will  die 
in  infancy."  '^ 

Ricardo,  one  of  the  chief  apostles  of  free  trade,  in  stating  his  "Iron 
Law  of  Wages,"  said: 

If  the  shoes  and  clothing  of  the  laborer  could,  by  improvements  in  machinery,  lie 
produced  by  one-fourth  of  the  labor  now  necessary  to  their  production,  they  would 
probably  fall  75  per  cent. ;  but  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  the  laborer  would 
thereby  be  enabled  permanently  to  consume  four  coats  or  four  pair  of  shoes,  instead 
of  one,  that  it  is  probable  that  his  wages  in  no  long  time  would  be  adjusted  by  the 
effects  of  competition  and  the  stimulus  to  population  to  the  new  value  of  the  neces- 
saries on  which  they  were  expended.  If  these  improvements  extended  to  all  the 
objects  of  the  laborer's  consumption,  we  should  find  him  probably,  at  the  end  of 
a  very  few  years,  in  the  possession  of  only  a  small,  if  any,  addition  to  his  enjoj'ments.' 

The  theory  advanced  by  free  trade  economists  which  was  known  as 
the  "wage  fund  theory,"  held  that  wages  were  paid  out  of  the  capital  of 
the  country'  seeking  investment,  out  of  which  there  was  a  predetermined 
amount  known  as  the  "wage  fund,"  which  alone  would  be  distributed 
among  the  laborers;  that  of  this  capital  a  certain  portion  must  in  the 
outset  be  deduced  for  profits,  rent,  materials  and  expenses,  and  what  was 
left  constituted  the  "wage  fund, "  which  would  be  distributed  among  the 
laborers  in  proportion  to  their  number.  If  the  fund  was  large  and  the 
laborers  few,  wages  would  be  high,  while  if  the  laborers  were  numerous 
and  the  fund  small  wages  would  be  low.  It  was  purely  a  question  of 
arithmetic.  Assuming  that  population  increases  faster  than  the  means 
of  subsistence,  the  labor  market  would  at  all  times  be  overcrowded,  and 
people  to  save  themselves  from  star\-ation,  would  be  willing  to  work  for 
what  they  could  get;  jobs  would  be  put  up  at  auction,  to  be  struck  off 
to  the  lowest  bidder. 

While  the  free  trade  professors  may  have  erred  in  the  theorj'  which 
they  formulated,  the  recent  experience  of  Great  Britain  when  subjected 
to  sharp,  free  competition  of  strong  rivals,  proves  that  they  were  accurate 
in  estimating  the  ultimate  effect  on  the  wage  earners  of  a  country,  under 
the  "struggle  for  existence"  imposed  by  free  trade.     The  strongest  and 

'  claims  of  Labor,  iu  Dissertations  and  Discussions,  Vol.  2.  pp.  264-5.  "  Elements  of  Political 
Economy,  p.  298.        3Xhe  Works  of  David  Ricardo,  London  :  John  Murray,  p  12. 


TARIFF  QVESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


most  powerful  labor  unions  and  combinations  have  failed  in  resisting 
reductions  in  wages  and  have  been  utterly  powerless  in  securing  advance- 
ments, while  the  army  of  the  unemploj-ed  has  increased  as  productive  indus- 
tries have  decayed  and  been  supplanted.  The  wage  fund  theory  which  had 
been  accepted  as  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  gospel  of  free  trade 
by  all  of  its  adherents,  was  repudiated  by  John  Stuart  Mill  in  1869,  when 
its  fallacies  were  exposed  by  Mr.  Francis  D.  Longe,  an  English  barrister, 
who  pointed  out  that  the  amount  of  wages  which  an  employer  could 
afford  to  pay  was  limited  by  the  amount  of  money  for  which  he  could  sell 
the  product.  This  theory  has  since  been  accepted  by  General  Francis  A. 
Walker  and  many  others  who  contend  that: 

It  is  the  prospect  of  a  profit  iu  production  which  determines  the  employer  to  hire 
laborers  ;  it  is  the  anticipated  value  of  the  product  which  determines  how  much  he 
can  pay  them.  The  product,  then,  and  not  capital  furnishes  at  once  the  motive  to 
empIo3-ment  and  the  measure  of  wages.  If  this  be  so  the  whole  wage  fund  theorj' 
falls,  for  it  is  built  on  the  assumption  that  capital  furnishes  the  measure  of  wages; 
that  the  wage  fund  is  no  larger  because  capital  is  no  larger,  and  that  the  only  way  to 
the  aggregate  amount  which  can  be  paid  in  wages  is  to  increase  capital.' 


Applied  to  international  competition  the  principle  .stated  by  Longe, 
and  recognized  by  General  Walker,  becomes  an  important  factor  in  deter- 
mining the  wage  rate.  The  production  of  the.  world  has  become  so  large 
that  not  only  the  British  manufacturers,  but  those  of  the  Continent  have 
constantly  on  hand  a  surplus  of  competing  commodities  which  are  seek- 
ing for  customers,  and  being  crowded  into  the  markets  of  the  world. 
This  has  reduced  the  selling  price  to  the  lowest  possible  point  and  made 
large  profits  impossible.  Through  their  open  ports  the  English  people 
have  made  their  home  market  a  part  of  the  market  of  the  w^orld  to  be 
contested  for.  The  producers  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Continental 
countries  are  struggling  to  undersell  each  other  and  to  acquire  and  hold 
the  markets.  This  means  cheap  goods,  and  every  nation  which  relies  on 
foreign  markets  for  the  sale  of  its  wares,  must  submit  to  this  condition. 
So  long  as  the  Germans,  the  Belgians,  the  French  and  the  Swiss  rely  on 
foreign  countries  for  the  sale  of  their  surplus  products,  it  will  be  impos- 
sible for  them  to  increase  the  wage  rate  of  their  artisans  to  a  point  which 
enhances  the  cost  of  production  above  their  competitors.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that,  although  Germany,  France,  Switzerland  and  Belgium  pursue 
policies  of  protection, high  wages  are  impossible.  Should  the  United  States 
enter  the  markets  of  the  world  as  a  competitor,  it  could  only  do  so  under 
the  same  conditions  of  trade.  While  Continental  countries  are  thus  unable 
to  advance  wages  to  as  high  a  point  as  those  paid  in  the  United  States, 
the  chief  advantage  derived  from  protection  has  been  found  in  the  devel- 
opment of  their  domestic  industries,  and  the  preservation  of  their  home 

1  Wages,  by  Walker,  p.  144. 


Ecoxomc  njscussioN. 


markets,  which  have  given  increased  employment  to  labor  in  the  diversi- 
fied industries  which  by  this  means  have  been  established  and  main- 
tained. Protection  with  them  has  increased  the  opportunties  for  employ- 
ment, through  which  the  masses  have  been  greatly  improved;  while  the 
excessive  competition  in  Great  Britain,  through  open  ports,  has  resulted 
in  the  destruction  of  domestic  industries,  diminished  opportunities  for 
employment,  increased  idleness  and  the  misery  and  degradation  of  the 
masses. 

This  brings  us  to  the  principle  which  fixes  the  rate  of  wages  under 
protection  in  the  United  States.  It  is  urged  by  many  protectionists  that 
the  wage  rate  is  determined  by  the  mode  of  living,  the  habits,  tastes  and 
desires  which  the  wage-earner  is  seeking  to  satisfy.  It  must,  of  course, 
be  conceded  that  the  degree  of  civilization  which  prevails  indicates  the 
desires  which  are  .sought  to  be  satisfied,  and  that  the  higher  the  order  of 
civilization  attained  the  greater  becomes  the  demand  for  comfortable  homes, 
good  clothing,  luxuries,  comforts,  hours  of  leisure,  entertainments  and  pleas- 
ures of  life.  The  higher  the  order  of  civilization  enjoyed,  the  more  expen- 
sive becomes  the  mode  of  living;  it  costs  more  to  produce  an  educated 
man  or  woman,  to  build  homes  and  furnish  them  decently,  than  it  does  to 
produce  uneducated  people  and  maintain  them  half  fed,  half  clad  and 
shelter  them  in  hovels.  A  laboring  man  earning  $2  a  day  will  live  better 
and  possess  for  himself  and  familj'  more  of  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of 
life  than  would  be  possible  if  he  earned  only  $1  a  day ;  hence,  the  mode  of 
living  and  high  wages  paid  in  the  United  States  increase  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction and  add  to  the  selling  price  of  every  product  of  human  effort.  This 
additional  cost  must  be  paid  by  the  consumers  of  the  commodities  pro- 
duced. It  is  a  conceded  fact  that  the  wage-earners  of  the  United  States 
receive  far  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in  any  other  country  on  the  face 
of  the  globe.  If,  then,  the  consumers  of  the  United  States  pay  more  for 
their  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life  than  they  would  under  a  low  wage 
scale,  they  are  simply  contributing  to  the  maintenance  of  that  civilization, 
degree  of  intelligence,  comfort  and  happiness  which  make  the  people  of 
the  United  States  conspicuous  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  The 
question  whether  the  people  of  the  United  States  pay  more  for  commodi- 
ties made  by  American  labor,  than  they  would  be  called  upon  to  pay  if 
the  same  articles  were  made  by  the  poorly  paid  labor  of  Great  Britain  and 
Europe,  is  wholly  immaterial.  The  real  question  at  issue  is,  does  it  paj' 
them  to  do  it?  Is  it  a  good  investment?  It  is  not  so  much  a  question  of 
accumulation  of  wealth  as  it  is  one  for  the  elevation  of  humanity.  It  is 
a  well-known  fact  that  poverty  and  degradation  arising  from  low  wages, 
breeds  discontent,  immorality  and  vice.  Children  raised  in  comfortable 
homes,  educated  and  enlightened,  make  better  men  and  women  and  better 
citizens.  Hence,  the  whole  economic  problem,  instead  of  being  a  ques- 
tion of  cash  payments,  merely  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents,  involves  the 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


moral,  social  and  intellectual  development  and  improvement  of  man- 
kind. 

Thestead3'  increase  in  wages  in  the  United  States  since  i860,  has  not 
been  brought  about  bj'  a  voluntary  increase  in  wages  by  manufacturers  as 
soon  as  tariff  laws  were  enacted.  When  manufacturers  go  to  Congress  and 
ask  that  duties  be  imposed  or  increased,  it  is  not  necessary  that  they  .should 
have  in  mind  a  corresponding  increase  in  wages  immediately  extended  as 
soon  as  the  tariff  laws  are  enacted.  Tariff  laws  enable  capitalists  to  open 
mines,  build  factories  and  establish  industries  which  could  not  exist  or 
be  established  were  it  not  for  the  tariff  barriers  which  shield  them  from 
foreign  competition.  The  opening  of  mines,  and  the  building  up  of 
industries,  afford  opportunities  for  employment.  They  create  a  demand 
for  home  labor.  A  protective  tariff,  then,  becomes  a  protection  to  oppor- 
tunities. The  more  varied  and  greater  opportunities  become,  the  more 
employment  is  found.  It  is  in  employments  thus  created  that  wages  are 
earned  which  go  to  build  homes,  fill  them  with  furniture,  clothe  and  feed 
families,  and  provide  the  means  of  satisfying  wants,  tastes  and  desires. 
If  the  mode  of  living,  tastes  and  desires  measure  that  which  is 
necessary  to  satisfy  them,  the  opportunities  for  employment  afford  the 
means.  Give  a  people  the  opportunities  for  employment,  and  they  will 
fix  their  own  wage  rate  under  their  own  conditions,  of  civilization. 
Destroy  these  opportunities,  and  whatever  the  desires  of  a  people  may 
be,  to  satisfy  them  is  impossible.  Hence  we  find  the  basis  of  the  whole 
social  fabric  of  all  progress  and  pro.sperity,  the  means  of  satisfying 
wants,  to  be  the  prime  economic  factor.  The  importance,  then,  of  stimu- 
lating and  fostering  the  various  branches  of  industry  such  as  agriculture, 
manufacturing,  mining,  transportation,  trade  and  commerce,  becomes 
apparent.  The  wants  of  man  are  satisfied  through  the  fruits  of  labor. 
As  opportunities  increase,  earnings  become  greater,  consumption  is 
enlarged  and  increased  production  follows. 

The  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed,  in  discus.sing  this  question  in  the  Hou.se 
of  Representatives  on  the  sixteenth  of  January,  1S94,  in  opposing  the 
pas.sage  of  the  Wil.son  bill,  said: 

Now,  let  me  come  for  a  moment  to  this  question  of  wages.  The  gentleman  says 
that  it  depends  upon  supply  and  demand.  I  say  that  is  an  utterly  exploded  doctrine. 
Wages  depend  upon  the  amount  of  the  market,  and  also  upon  the  nature  of  the 
workingman  himself.  I  anticipate  what  the  gentleman  is  going  to  say  in  response  to 
the  suggestions  of  other  gentlemen  on  his  side,  that  what  they  need  is  a  more 
extensive  market ;  that  what  they  need  is  to  go  forth  to  the  rest  of  the  universe  and 
obtain  a  market ;  and  the  method  they  propose  is  to  obtain  a  market  somewhere  else 
by  giving  up  the  market  that  we  have  here.  But  we  on  our  side  believe  in  enlarging 
the' market  in  a  different  fashion.  We  do  not  mean  to  go  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  and 
struggle  with  the  cheaper  labor  of  the  whole  world.  What  we  mean  to  do  is  to 
elevate  the  market  of  this  country  by  giving  liigher  wages  to  the  laborers,  aiid  thireliy 
constituting  a  market  as  broad  as  our  production.     ...     So  that  it  is  not  the 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


arbitrary  fixation  of  wages,  but  it  is  the  growth  in  iutelHgence,  the  growth 
and  wants  of  the  laborer  that  forces  a  rise  of  wages.  What  is  the  direct  means  by 
which  the  laboring  men  reach  this  result  ?  Bj'  labor  unions,  by  combining,  by  making 
manufacturers  understand  that  they  umst  give  higher  wages.  How  are  the  manu- 
facturers enabled  to  give  higher  wages  ?  By  increasing  their  product,  which  increase 
can  only  take  place  by  the  larger  market  which  comes  of  these  larger  wages. 

That  is  the  secret  of  this  matter.  But  there  are  limitations  in  this  case  just  as 
there  are  to  all  human  tendencies.  The  laboring  man  is  struggling  to  supply  his 
wants.  He  makes  his  demand  on  the  manufacturer.  The  manufacturer  is  set  to  work 
to  devise'  new  inventions,  and  by  the  assistance  of  these  he  is  able  to  supply  these 
wants.  But  there  is  a  limitation  to  inventions ;  there  is  a  limitation  to  the  capacit}' 
of  tlie  employer  to  enlarge  his  market.  And  those  two  things  struggle  together.  In 
this  country,  with  the  laborer  seeking  to  obtain  higher  wages  and  fewer  hours  of  work 
and  the  demand  of  the  public  for  lower  prices,  there  is  going  on  a  tremendous 
stru;.;gle ;  and  that  is  all  the  struggle  that  the  inventive  power  of  this  country  can 
sustain. 

Now  vou  propose,  by  bringing  us  in  contact  with  a  lower  civilization  without 
protection,  to  make  the  success  of  that  struggle  an  absolute  impossibilit}'.  You  are 
crushing  down  the  laboring  man  by  your  efforts ;  and  you  are  thereby  intensifying 
this  struggle  between  the  employer  and  his  employees,  which  is  liable  to  be  fought  out 
as  long  as  selfishness  reigns  in  this  world.  But  thank  Heaven,  the  success,  the  good 
fortune,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  laboring  man  does  not  depend  on  these  men  who 
rend  the  heavens  with  their  shouts  of  praise,  but  upon  the  laws  of  the  Lord  God 
Omnipotent.  And  among  the  laws  of  Omnipotence  is  the  use  of  human  brains  by  aid 
of  law  to  provide  the  laborer  with  opportunities  for  work. 

International  Competition  and  Foreign  Trade. 
This  brings  us  to  a  consideration  of  the  advantages  which  the  advo- 
cates of  free  trade  contend  would  arise,  from  a  practical  application  of 
international  competition  between  the  higher  civilization  of  the  United 
States  and  the  lower  civilization  of  Great  Britain  and  Europe.  This 
involves  a  discussion  of  the  relative  importance  to  a  nation  of  home  trade 
as  against  foreign  trade.  It  is  conceded  by  the  free  traders  that  under 
protection  a  vast  industrial  sj'stem  becomes  established  and  is  main- 
tained; and  that  the  home  trade  of  a  country  is  secured  to  its  own  people. 
Yet  it  is  contended  that  the  industrial  prosperity  of  a  nation  may  more 
surely  be  attained  by  abandoning  the  production  of  those  commodities 
which  can  be  made  cheaper  in  other  countries,  and  by  confining  the 
energies  of  the  people  to  those  of  which  superior  advantages  in  produc- 
tion are  possessed ;  that  even  though  we  should  lose  a  large  number  of 
our  present  industries  by  importing  commodities  which  we  are  now 
making,  that  the  increased  importations  would  occasion  a  foreign  demand 
for  other  domestic  productions  which  would  be  •given  in  exchange  for 
thos'i  purchased ;  and  hence  whatever  loss  we  sustained  through  the  disap- 
pearance of  established  industries  and  diminished  direct  trade,  would  be 
more  than  compensated  for,  in  foreign  trade;  that  one  of  the  chief  advan- 
tages arising  from  such  change  of  policy  would  be  found  in  the  benefits 
consumers  would  derive  from  cheap  commodities.     This  brings  up  for 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


consideration  the  conditions  and  circumstances  under  which  we  would  be 
able  to  sell  our  wares  in  foreign  countries  and  compensate  ourselves  for 
the  loss  sustained  by  surrendering  domestic  productions. 

Under  the  "natural  law"  of  trade  contended  for,  it  is  urged  that 
both  venders  and  purchasers  would  derive  an  advantage  by  "buying  in 
the  cheapest  and  selling  in  the  dearest  market."  The  idea  that  we  could 
sell  everything  for  a  good  price  and  buy  everything  ver>-  cheap,  is  most 
fascinating.  "To  buy  in  the  cheapest  market,"  what  does  that  mean? 
It  means  that  the  American  people  are  to  buy  their  glass,  earthen  and 
china  ware,  cottons,  woolens,  silks,  linens,  all  tools,  machinery,  hard- 
ware and  cutlery,  iron,  steel,  and  in  fact  every  manufactured  article,  in 
Europe;  that  they  shall  entirely  cease  buying  of  the  home  producers, 
unless  our  manufacturers  will  sell  these  articles  cheaper  than  they  can  be 
purchased  from  any  other  people  on  earth.  It  means  also,  that  our  con- 
sumers of  food  will  buy  farm  products  in  Canada,  the  Argentine  Repub- 
lic, or  wherever  they  can  be  bought  at  the  lowest  price.  It  means  that 
the  purchasers  of  all  countries  shall  also  buy  where  thej'  can  buy  the 
cheapest;  hence  the  purchasers  of  the  world  will  not  come  to  the  United 
States  to  buy  either  manufactured  goods  or  farm  products,  unless  they 
can  buy  them  cheaper  here  than  in  any  other  country.  Instead,  then,  of 
selling  dear,  we  must  also  sell  cheap  or  not  at  all,  excepting,  of  course,  as 
we  produce  a  superior  article  or  something  that  cannot  be  obtained  else- 
where, which  from  the  universality  in  the  growth  of  farm  products  and 
the  wide  extension  of  manufactures,  is  unlikely  to  occur.  We  can  only 
become  sellers  by  selling  for  a  lower  price  than  anybody'  else.  That  this 
involves  a  reduction  in  the  cost  of  production  below  the  rest  of  the  world, 
necessarily  follows.  But  under  the  law  of  "the  survival  of  the  fittest," 
those  industries  which  cannot  withstand  the  struggle  must  perish,  and 
the  capital,  if  there  is  any  left  after  the  wreck,  must  seek  investment, 
and  the  laborers  thrown  out  of  work  must  find  employment  in  some 
other  industry ;  but  that  other  industry  must  always  be  one  in  which 
commodities  can  be  produced  cheaper  than  el.sewhere.  To  sell  in  the  best 
market,  then,  necessarily  means  to  undersell  all  competitors. 

In  order  to  increase  our  sales  in  foreign  markets,  we  must  make  our 
country  a  good  country  to  buy  in  before  foreign  purchasers  will  seek  our 
market,  hence  while  this  leveling  process  is  going  on,  we  should  be  buy- 
ing more  than  we  could  sell.  The  free  trade  economists,  however,  hold 
that  while  exports  of  domestic  produce  equal  to  imports  of  foreign 
produce  would  not  immediately  ari.se,  ultimately  and  in  the  long  run, 
exports  must  balance  imports,  and  trade  must  be  carried  on  by  an 
exchange  of  commodities.  It  is  important  to  under.stand  the  practical 
operation  of  this  theory,  the  reasons  why  it  must  be  .sound,  in  order 
that  we  may  measure  its  effect  upon  our  industrial  .system  when  put  to 
the  test. 


Ecommic  DISCUSSION. 


Under  a  sj-stem  of  free  trade,  our  merchants  would  buy  in  the 
cheapest  markets  of  the  world,  and  no  foreign  nation  would  buy  of  us  till 
our  prices  were  reduced  to  at  least  the  level  of  other  countries.  Assum- 
ing that  our  prices  are  higher  than  in  any  other  countr3',  instead  of  buy- 
ing at  home  our  purchasers  would  buy  abroad.  This  would  certainly 
make  a  heavy  balance  of  trade  against  us  for  a  time.  If  our  present  con- 
suming power. could  be  maintained,  it  would  not  take  long  to  exhaust 
our  present  supply  of  gold  in  the  United  States,  which  is  now  about 
$600,000,000.  But  having  shut  down  our  factories  and  abandoned  our 
laborers  that  we  might  seek  cheaper  goods  in  foreign  markets,  the  con- 
suming power  of  a  large  portion  of  our  citizens  would  at  once  be  reduced 
by  cutting  off  their  incomes,  so  that  our  foreign  purchases  after  our 
accumulations  were  exhausted,  would  begin  to  decline  and  the  outflow  of 
coin  would  in  a  measure  be  checked.  Free  trade  authorities  admit  that 
the  outflow  of  metals  would  be  the  immediate  effect,  but  Mr.  Edward 
North  Buxton,  in  the  "A  B  Cof  Free  Trade,"  page  13  (published  by  the 
Cobden  Club),  says:  "A  very  small  withdrawal  of  gold  from  the  currency 
of  the  country  rai.ses  the  rate  of  interest,  and  this  at  once  tempts  back 
what  has  gone  out. ' ' 

The  effect  upon  the  business  of  a  country  situated  like  the  United 
States,  of  a  stringenc\'  in  the  money  market,  and  an  increase  in  the 
rate  of  interest,  is  well  known  to  business  men.  It  would  result  in  the 
calling  in  of  all  short  loans,  tie  up  every  dollar  to  procure  higher  rates  of 
exchange  and  discount,  and  plunge  the  business  interests  of  the  country 
at  once  into  bankruptcy.  But  it  is  contended  that  as  the  precious  metals 
flow  out  from  a  country'  to  settle  an  adverse  balance  of  trade,  money 
becomes  scarce,  appreciates  in  value  and  prices  fall.  Through  the  decline 
in  prices  thus  brought  about,  the  tendency  would  be  to  make  the  United 
States  a  good  market  to  buy  in.  This  process  of  making  money  scarce 
and  thereby  making  commodities  cheap,  it  should  be  noted,  is  one  of 
the  causes  which  would  aid  in  reducing  the  United  States  to  the  price 
level  of  other  countries.  But  this  compensatory  goods  for  goods  theory, 
or  exchange  of  commodities,  would  not  begin  to  operate  till  American 
labor  was  compelled  to  accept  the  lowest  rate  of  wages  paid  by  our  com- 
peting rivals,  and  until  American  capital  was  also  compelled  to  accept  an 
equally  low  return  for  its  investment.  In  order,  then,  to  reach  the  millen- 
nium of  free  trade,  both  labor  and  capital  in  America,  would  be  compelled 
to  produce  goods  cheaper  and  take  less  return  for  their  services  than  in 
competing  countries,  in  order  to  turn  the  tide  of  commerce  in  our  favor. 
Having  obtained,  by  this  means  and  through  reductions  in  wages  and 
otherwise,  a  point  below  the  lowest  level  in  other  countries,  our  merchants 
would  begin  to  sell  abroad  and  when  we  reached  a  point  where  we  sold 
more  than  we  purchased,  gold  would  come  back.  The  returning  current  of 
gold  would  increase  the  volume  of  our  money,  and  make  it  more  plentiful, 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


this  it  is  claimed  would  depreciate  its  purchasing  power  and  raise  prices 
again.  Should  the  inflow  of  gold,  on  this  vibration  of  the  pendulum,  raise 
prices  above  the  level  in  competing  countries,  we  would  again  begin  to  buy 
abroad.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  only  by  reducing  our  prices  below  the  level 
of  other  countries  and  making  our  markets  the  best  markets  to  buy  in,  can 
it  be  said  that  if  we  buy  abroad  we  shall  be  able  to  .sell  in  return.  The 
increased  importations  occasioned  by  the  reduction  of  duties  made  by  the 
Gorman-Wilson  bill,  is  affording  a  practical  illustration  of  this  proposi- 
tion. We  have  increased  our  purchases  because  goods  can  be  bought 
cheaper  of  foreign  than  of  home  manufacturers,  and  gold  is  flowing  out. 

Our  exports,  save  in  exceptional  cases,  have  not  increased,  foreigners 
have  not  come  to  our  market  to  purchase,  because  we  have  not  yet 
reduced  wages  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  sell  cheaper  than  others.  Hence, 
the  increased  purchases  without  a  corresponding  increase  in  exports  show 
that  we  have  not  3et  reached  a  point  where  we  sell  as  much  as  we  buy. 
The  result  is  the  almost  weekly  shipments  of  gold  to  settle  the  balance 
of  trade  which  has  turned  against  us.  This  was  admitted  by  John  G. 
Carlisle,  Mr.  Cleveland's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  an  inter\-iew  on 
September  1 1,  1895,  published  in  the  New  York  World  the  following  day. 
Speaking  of  the  causes  of  the  exports  of  gold,  Mr.  Carlisle  said : 

Unless  there  should  be  another  scare  in  regard  to  the  gold  reserve  such  as  we  had 
before,  or  a  financial  panic,  neither  of  which  things  in  my  judgment  is  likely  to  occur, 
there  will  be  no  necessity  for  another  bond  issue  in  October  to  preserve  the  reser\'e. 
The  present  removal  of  gold  from  this  country  is  not  due  to  any  lack  of  confidence 
abroad  in  our  national  finances.  It  is  .simply  the  result  of  trade  conditions.  Our 
merchants  are  importing  immense  amounts  of  goods  from  Elirope,  which  indicates 
that  they  expect  a  big  business  this  fall  and  winter,  and  our  gold  goes  abroad  to  pay 
for  these  importations. 

The  necessity  of  reducing  wages  in  order  to  make  cheaper  goods, 
and  thereby  hold  our  own  markets  or  increase  our  sales  abroad,  was 
recognized  and  pointed  out  by  the  Journal  of  Commerce  and  Commercial 
Bulletin,  a  leading  free  trade  journal  of  the  United  States,  Monday, 
November  5,  1894,  in  an  editorial  headed  "High  Wages  and  Low 
Interest."  The  editorial  begins  by  saying:  "When  wages  are  high  the 
only  legitimate  reason  is  that  business  is  prosperous,  production  active, 
and  profits  thereon  satisfactory.  If  wages  are  high  when  these  condi- 
tions do  not  exist,  then  they  are  wrongfully  high  and  cannot  long  remain 

Speaking  of  the  low  rate  of  interest,  the  lack  of  demand  for  capital, 
it  says: 

It  means  that  enterprise  is  not  yielding  its  usual  return  of  profit,  or  that  there  are 
unusual  risks  attending  business,  or  that  there  is  a  reduction  in  the  national  capacity 

for  consumption,  or  that  all  these  causes  combined  are  at   work It  {■>  a 

condition  of  affairs  when  the  employers  of  capital  do  not  care  to  accept  the 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 

use  of  it,  although  it  can  be  had  for  virtually  uothiug.  The  solution  of  the  anomaly 
is  that  at  the  time  being,  it  is  worth  nothing  for  use,  that  there  is  a  large  surplus  of 
it  for  which  there  is  no  growth  of  industry  or  trade  to  provide  employment. 

Proceeding  to  show  the  increase  in  the  earnings  of  our  laboring  popu- 
lation during  ten  years  (1880  to  1890),  the  high  wages  received  and  also 
the  decline  in  the  price  of  commodities  which  has  taken  place,  this  journal 
called  upon  the  laboring  men  of  the  United  States  to  adjust  themselves  to 
the  new  industrial  conditions,  by  consenting  to  a  reduction  in  wages,  and 
said: 

Reviewing,  in  the  light  of  the  facts,  the  position  of  capital  and  labor  respectively 
for  the  last  half  generation,  it  is  thus  evident  that,  relatively,  labor  has  had  much  the 
best  of  it  in  the  co-partnership  of  the  tw.o  interests.  It  is  beyond  question  that  at  no 
previous  period  has  labor  been  so  prosperous  as  during  the  3'ears  under  review. 
Within  the  same  period  the  earnings  of  capital  have  been  diminishing;  and  to-day 
industrial  capitalists  have  to  confront  problems  and  a  situation  of  unusual  seriousness. 
What  is  to  be  done  under  these  circumstances  ?  Is  labor  to  still  absorb  the  profits, 
and  is  capital  to  surrender  its  rewards?  This  is  no  question  of  sentiment  on  either 
the  one  side  or  the  other.  It  must  be  determined  by  the  natural  laws  controlling  the 
market  value  of  labor.  The  first  phase  of  that  solution  is  already  here.  Capital  is 
standing  aloof  from  production  until  it  can  make  a  profit  out  of  it.  That  is  its  onl}- 
means  of  self-protection.  Its  contraction  of  work  will  express  itself  in  the  non- 
employment  of  labor;  and  idleness  in  the  ranks  of  the  unions  will  prove  more  potent 
as  a  means  of  readjusting  wages  than  all  the  harangues  of  labor  leaders  and  the  com- 
pulsions of  strikes.  Every  day  of  the  present  scale  of  wages  means  so  much  more 
loss  to  employers,  and  therefore  so  much  more  curtailment  of  production.  It  remains 
with  the  unions  to  determine  to  what  lengths  they  will  carrj'  their  insistence  upon  a 
scale  of  pay  that  is  incompatible  with  the  maintenance  of  industrial  activity  It  is 
within  their  power  to  make  the  industrial  situation  much  worse  than  it  already  is;  but 
if  they  choose  a  policy  of  short-sighted  exaction,  they  can  only  expect  that  the  conse- 
quences will  fall  with  tenfold  greater  effect  upon  themselves  than  on  any  other  class. 
Bv  a  timely  yielding,  they  may  impart  an  immediate  revival  to  trade;  by  persistence 
they  will  invite  a  reaction  which  can  only  put  them  at  the  utmost  disadvantage  in  a 
later  readjustment.  An  average  reduction  of  20  per  cent  in  wages  is  demanded  by  the 
necessities  of  employers  and  equally  by  the  true  interest  of  labor.  With  that,  we 
might  expect  a  general  revival  of  business;  if  it  be  not  quickly  conceded,  we  must 
wait  until  worse  conditions  compel  the  concession. 

This  announces  the  very  kernel  of  Cobdenism.  By  reducing  wages 
and  degrading  labor  our  industries  are  to  be  defended  and  carried  on. 
By  this  means  alone  are  we  to  encourage  the  building  of  factories  and  the 
investment  of  capital.  By  robbing  labor  profits  on  capital  are  made  pos- 
sible. This  infamous  doctrine  is  termed  "Tariff  Reform."  We  are 
now  witnessing  its  results. 

Striking  first  at  capital,  by  bringing  into  the  field  foreign  competi- 
tors that  destroyed  profits  and  closed  mills,  it  then  called  upon  the  wage- 
earner  to  yield  to  the  inevitable  and  consent  to  a  further  reduction  in 
wages;  and  this  at  a  time  when  wages  had  already  been  reduced  from  10 
to  20  per  cent,  and  labor  still  remained  unemployed. 


TAIUFF  QCESTION  IK  THE  UNITED  STATE!: 


Instead  of  giving  new  vigor  and  life  to  the  industries  bi  the  country, 
It  acts  as  a  blight  on  prosperity,  and  its  leveling  process  brings  bankruptcy 
to  employers,  and  misery  and  want  to  the  households  of  labor.  The  same 
results  followed  free  trade  in  England.  Mongredien  in  speaking  of  the 
depression  of  trade  which  has  existed  in  Great  Britain  since  1874, 
although  attributing  it  to  a  reaction  in  business  following  a  period  of 
prosperity,  and  thus  ignoring  the  excessive  competition  which  had  set  in 
from  the  Continent,  as  related  ,by  the  British  manufacturers,  refers  to  the 
reduction  in  wages  as  the  operation  of  a  natural  law.     He  says : 

When,  after  the  lumatural  inflation,  demand  subsided  into  its  legitimate  channels, 
wages  gradually  fell,  and  have  continued  to  fall  in  sympathy  with,  but  hardly  in  the 
same  proportion  as,  the  profits  of  capital  and  the  prices  of  commodities.  Against  this 
decline  the  wage  receivers  have  (as  is  natural  and  excusable)  fought  inch  by  inch.  By 
concerted  action,  by  strikes,  by  the  partial  adoption  of  co-operation,  and  by  every 
weapon  which  trade  unionism  put  in  their  hands,  they  opposed  all  the  resistance  in 
their  power  to  the  reduction  of  their  wages.  But  the  irresistible  course  of  events 
proved  too  strong  for  them,  and  they  had  to  jaeld.' 

On  November  29,  1886,  John  Bright  conceded  the  vital  point  in  the 
controversy,  by  admitting  that  the  only  way  under  free  trade  b\-  which 
destructive  competition  can  be  met  and  home  factories  preserved,  is  by 
a  reduction  of  wages.  He  had  been  written  to  by  a  gentleman  from 
Nottingham  calling  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  lace  industry  was 
being  ruined  by  competition;  that  machinery  and  factories  were  being 
removed  from  England,  and  asked  for  his  opinion  as  to  how  the  difficulty 
might  be  met.     Replying  in  a  letter  of  the  above  date,  he  said : 

I  fear  that  I  can  write  nothing  that  will  be  of  service  to  you  in  the  circumstances 
you  describe.  If  your  manufacturers  are  unable  to  compete  with  their  rivals  in  other 
parts  of  the  country,  or  in  foreign  countries,  their  business  nnist  be  unprosperous,  and 
may  gradually  decay.  If  the  cause  of  these  be  in  the  high  wages  claimed  and  paid  in 
your  town,  unless  wages  in  other  parts  can  be  raised,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  your 
trade  can  only  be  preserved  by  a  reduction  of  your  wages,  or  by  some  other  diminu- 
tion of  the  cost  of  manufacturing  if  such  be  possible  .  .  If  trades  unions,  for 
example,  insist  on  wages  which  a  trade  cannot  pay,  the  particular  trade  may,  and 
indeed  must,  suffer— must  become  unprosperous,  and  may  decay  and  be  driven  to 
some  other  district  where  labor  is  free  from  the  interference  and  unwise  restrictions  of 
combinations  of  workmen.  If  any  given  trade  is  being  removed  from  your  town,  if 
machinery  is  being  taken  down  in  Nottingham  to  be  set  up  in  some  other  town  or 
district,  it  must  be  known  to  your  workmen,  and  they  surely  will  not  be  long  in  dis- 
covering their  true  interests  in  the  question. 2 

This  was  the  cold  comfort  received  from  the  great  apostle  of  free 
trade,  forty  years  after  he  had  stood  in  parliament  with  Richard  Cobden 
and  advocated  the  mistaken  notion  that  the  superior  efficiency  of  the 
British  artisan  would  enable  him  to  out.strip  all  rivals  and  maintain  the 
advancing  wage  rate  which  he  had  enjoyed  under  protectiou. 

1  Free  Trade  and  English  Commerce,  pp.  69-70.        =  Fair-Trade  Journal,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  92. 


ECONOJIIC  DISCUSSION. 


The  ruin  which  must  befall  our  country  while  passing  through  the 
transformation  from  our  vast  industrial  S3-stem  to  the  conditions  imposed 
by  an  application  of  free  trade  principles,  is  most  appalling  to  contem- 
plate. In  order  to  hold  our  home  niarkpt,  we  must  at  once  be  reduced  to 
the  level  of  Europe  as  a  producing  country,  and  thus  sacrifice  billions  of 
dollars  in  wages  and  submit  to  an  incalculable  shrinkage  in  values.  But 
while  this  is  taking  place,  our  industries  could  not  be  kept  intact.  Our 
system  of  doing  business  on  credit  is  .so  universal,  that  shrinkage  in 
values  would  ruin  every  manufacturing  establishment  and  in  turn  wreck 
every  bank,  and  in  its  destructive  influence  would  reach  every  de- 
positor and  everj'  home  in  the  land.  We  should  be  left  with  a  bankrupt 
people  attempting,  withovit  capital  or  credit,  to  resu.scitate  and  readjust  our 
industries  to  a  condition  under  which,  if  they  were  continued,  they  would 
j-ield  meagre  returns  to  labor  and  capital.  This  process  has  actually 
begun.  The  calamities  of  the  last  three  years  are  but  a  shadow  of  what 
must  inevitably  follow  if  the  warfare  is  continued  and  the  designs  of  free 
traders  are  put  fully  into  practice. 

The  Gorman-Wilson  bill  directed  its  attack  against  the  woolen 
industry  by  reducing  duties  to  an  average  ad  valorem  rate  of  less  than 
50  per  cent,  which  by  a  system  of  undervaluation  that  is  made  possible, 
reduces  the  protective  duty  still  lower.  The  busy  woolen  mills  of  Eng- 
land and  the  idle  woolen  mills  of  the  United  States,  with  the  increased 
imports  of  woolen  goods,  show  that  the  death-dealing  process  is  doing  its 
work. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  great  purpose  of  the  free  trade 
movement  is  the  destruction  of  the  manufactories  of  the  United  States, 
that  foreign  manufacturers  may  step  in  and  monopolize  our  markets. 
The  appeal  is  made  to  the  agriculturist  that  he  would  profit  by  joining 
hands  with  the  British  manufacturers  in  the  destruction  of  the  manufac- 
tories of  his  own  country.  The  result  of  this  policy  would  not  only 
destroy  the  great  industrial  centres  of  the  United  States,  in  which  the 
American  farmer  finds  the  best  market  for  his  produce,  but  by  driving 
more  people  into  farming  it  would  increa.se  the  number  of  agriculturists, 
and  bring  about  such  over-production  in  farm  produce,  that  he  would 
find  little  sale  for  his  commodities  in  the  glutted  markets.  But  this,  he 
should  understand,  is  precisely  what  the  free  trader  is  seeking  to  accom- 
plish. The  "cheapness"  which  he  advocates  is  not  confined  to  cheap 
manufactures,  but  to  cheap  bread  and  vegetables  as  well.  The  policy  of 
"cheapness"  is  aimed  at  the  farmer  equally  with  all  producers.  Before 
the  American  farmer  should  consent  to  the  destruction  of  his  home  mar- 
ket, he  should  consider  the  probabilities  of  his  finding  a  foreign  market 
for  his  farm  produce.  Foreigners  will  only  buy  his  products  when  he 
offers  to  sell  them  cheaper  than  they  can  purchase  in  the  Argentine 
Republic,  in  Russia,  Armenia  and  other  parts  of  the  world.  While  the 
52 


^'o^ 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


free  trader  is  using  the  argument  of  cheap  clothing  with  the  farmer,  he 
is  talking  about  cheap  agricultural  produce  to  those  living  on  fixed 
incomes  and  the  masses  in  the  manufacturing  districts.  "Cheapness" 
is  the  bait  which  the  free  trader  puts  on  all  his  hooks. 

The  United  States  being  a  debtor  country,  it  is  difficult  to  prevent  the 
export  of  coin.  Our  people  each  year  having  a  large  sum  of  interest  to 
remit  to  the  citizens  of  foreign  countries,  from  whom  monej^  has  been 
borrowed,  are  required  also  to  pay  a  very  large  amoimt  to  foreign  ship 
owners,  for  freight  charges,  while  at  the  same  time  American  tourists  are 
purchasing  bills  of  exchange  on  foreign  banks,  all  of  which  must  be 
settled  for,  and  balanced  either  by  the  shipment  of  commodities  or 
precious  metals.  The  balance  of  trade  in  commodities  must  necessarily, 
from  these  causes,  be  in  our  favor  to  a  very  large  amount  in  order  to 
prevent  a  constant  outflow  of  gold.  This,  however,  is  in  part  compensated 
for,  by  the  sale  of  our  securities  in  foreign  countries,  for  which  drafts  on 
New  York  are  returned  instead  of  coin.  When  we  add  to  this  an  adverse 
balance  of  trade  in  commodities,  the  difficulties  are  augmented  and  we 
mu.st  suffer  incalulable  injury  by  the  constant  impairment  of  capital  which, 
if  kept  at  home,  would  find  investment  in  domestic  enterprises,  and  thus 
constantly  diminish  the  necessity  of  borrowing  in  foreign  countries,  and 
ultimately  make  us  financially  independent  of  the  world.  A  favorable 
balance  of  trade  in  commodities,  continued  for  a  long  term  of  years  suffi- 
cient to  turn  the  flow  of  gold  to  our  shores,  would  soon  result  in  a  return 
of  our  securities  and  we  should  ultimately  become  free  from  indebtedness  to 
foreign  nations.  The  interest  account  being  kept  at  hoipe  as  well,  would 
also  add  yearly  to  our  capital  'and  wealth.  If  in  addition  to  this,  we 
should  build  up  a  merchant  marine  and  save  to  our  own  people  the  vast 
amount,  exceeding  $200,000,000  a  year,  which  is  now  paid  to  foreign 
ship  owners,  our  productive  capital  would  still  farther  be  increased.  So 
it  is  apparent  that  the  opulence  and  independence  of  our  people  are 
increased  or  diminished  by  the  economic  policy  which  we  pursue.  The 
adoption  of  free  trade  or  low  tariff  must  increase  the  difficulties  of  our 
industrial  life  and  tend  constantly  to  impoverish  our  country  and  degrade 
our  labor.  While  on  the  other  hand,  under  the  time-honored  policy  of 
protection,  we  should  continue  in  that  career  of  industrial  prosperity 
which,  after  thirty-two  years,  has  placed  us  above  all  nations  in  Christen- 
dom in  the  accumulation  of  wealth  and  the  material  welfare  of  our  people, 
and  if  restored  would  ultimately  make  us  industrially,  as  well  as  politi- 
cally, independent  of  the  rest  of  the  world. 

HoMK  Tkadk  the  B.vsis  of  iNnusTKi.M.  Pro.spekity. 
Abraham  Lincoln  said:  "  Jl7u-ii  an  American  paid  ta-cnty  dollars  for 
sled  rails  lo  an  English  maniifachirer ,  America  had  the  steel  and  England 
had  the  twenty  dollars.     But  when  he  paid  twenty  dollars  for  the  steel  to 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


an  American  manufacturer,  America  liad  both  /lie  steel  and  the  tieenty 
dollars." 

The  free  trade  maxim  "Take  care  of  the  consumer  and  let  the  producer 
take  care  of  himself;  don't  tax  the  nation  for  the  benefit  of  a  producing 
class,"  will  now  be  contrasted  with  the  protectionist  maxim  ''whatsoever 
YOU  do  be  sure  to  lake  care  to  develop  the  producing  forces  of  your  own 
country.'"  The  eminent  economist  and  jurist,  Sir  John  Barnard  Byles, 
said : 

'  '.4  nation,  li'hethcr  it  consumes  its  own  products  or  with  them  purchases 
from  abroad,  can  have  no  more  value  than  it  produces.  The  supreme  policy 
of  every  nation,  therefore,  is  to  develop  the  producing  forces  of  its  own  coun- 
try. What  are,  they?  The  working  men,  the  lafid,  the  mines,  the 
machinery,  the  7vater pozver,"  etc.^ 

The  advocates  of  free  trade,  however,  contend  that  foreign  commodi- 
ties, ' '  are  always  paid  for  by  domestic  commodities,  and  therefore  the  pur- 
chase of  foreign  commodities  encourages  domestic  industry  as  much  as 
the  purchase  of  domestic  commodities."  This  proposition  is  presented 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  imports  are  always  beneficial  and  not 
harmful  to  a  nation ;  that  as  they  increase,  exports  of  domestic  commodi- 
ties must  necessarily  increase  also ;  as  foreign  trade  grows,  home  trade  must 
also  grow.  It  is  from  this  that  they  measure  the  industrial  growth  and 
prosperity  of  a  nation  by  its  foreign  trade.  Although  it  has  been  fully 
demonstrated  that  increased  imports  of  commodities  arising  from  reduced 
duties  or  free  trade,  would  not  immediately  be  followed  by  corresponding 
exports  of  domestic  commodities,  yet  if  it  should  be  conceded  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  for  every  import  of  commodities  there  would  be  an 
export  of  domestic  commodities  which  would  greatly  augment  the  foreign 
exchanges  of  the  United  States,  it  may  still  be  shown  that  home  trade  or 
exchanges  of  domestic  commodities  between  our  own  people  is  more 
profitable  to  the  nation  than  foreign  trade. 

This  proposition  was  announced  by  Adam  Smith.     He  said : ' 

The  capital  which  is  employed  in  purchasing  in  one  part  of  the  country  in  order 
to  sell  in  another  the  produce  of  the  industry  of  that  country,  generally  replaces  by 
such  operation  two  distinct  capitals  that  had  both  been  employed  in  the  agriculture  or 
manufacture  of  that  country,  and  thereby  enables  them  to  continue  that  employment. 
When  both  are  the  produce  of  domestic  industry,  it  necessarily  replaces,  by 
every  such  operation,  tzvo  distinct  capitals,  which  had  both  been  employed  in  support- 
ing productive  labor,  and  thereby  enables  them  to  continue  that  support.  The  cap- 
ital which  sends  Scotch  manufactures  to  London,  and  brings  back  English  manufac- 
tures and  corn  to  Edinburgh,  necessarily  replaces,  by  every  such  operation,  t-wo 
British  capitals,  which  had  both  been  employed  in  the  agriculture  or  manufactures  of 
Great  Britain. 

The  capital  employed  in  purchasing  foreign  goods  for  home  consumption,  when 

this  purchase  is  made  with  the  produce  of  domestic  industry,  replaces,  too,  by  every 

Sophisms  of  Free  Trade,  p.  221.       «  Wealth  of  Nations,  Book  2,  Chapter  5. 


TARIFF  qUEnriON  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


such  operation,  two  distinct  capitals,  bid  one  of  them  only  is  employed  in  supporting 
domestic  industry.  The  capital  which  sends  British  goods  to  Portugal,  and  brings 
back  Portuguese  goods  to  Great  Britain,  replaces  by  every  such  operation  only  one 
British  capital.  The  other  is  a  Portuguese  one.  Though  the  returns,  therefore,  of  the 
foreign  trade  of  consumption  should  be  as  quick  as  those  of  the  home  trade,  the 
capital  employed  in  it  will  give  but  one-half  the  encouragement  to  the  industry  or  pro- 
ductive labor  of  the  country. 

A  capital,  therefore,  employed  in  the  home  trade,  will  sometimes  make  twelve 
operations,  or  be  sent  out  and  returned  twelve  times,  before  a  capital  employed  in  the 
foreign  trade  of  consumption  has  made  one.  If  the  capitals  are  equal,  therefore,  the 
one  will  give  four-and-twenty  times  more  encouragement  and  support  to  the  industry 
of  the  country  than  the  other. 

The  economic  principle  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  advantage  de- 
rived from  the  pohcy  of  protection  stated  b}-  Adam  Smith,  was  elucidated 
and  developed  by  Sir  John  Barnard  Byles,  in  1S49,  in  the  following  able 
and  comprehensive  discussion  : ' 


^replace  capital?"     It  is  an 
.-ing  to  be  attentively  consid- 


What  does  Adam  Smith  mean  by  the  expression, 
expression  not  to  be  pas.=ed  over  in  haste,  but  well  des£ 
ered  and  analyzed. 

He  means  that  the  whole  value  of  a  commodity  is  spent  in  its  production,  aud  yet 
reappears  in  the  shape  of  the  new  product.  That  in  its  production  there  is  an  expend- 
iture not  of  the  profit  merely,  but  of  the  entire  value,  and  that  the  whole  of  that 
expenditure  not  only  maintains  landlords,  tenants,  tradesmen  and  workpeople,  but 
furnishes  an  eflfective  demand  and  market  for  other  productions.  He  means  that  the 
clear  gain,  the  spendable  revenue,  the  net  income  of  the  producing  nation,  is  increased 
by  the  amount  of  the  entire  value  of  the  domestic  product  and  that  the  nation  is  so 
much  the  richer  ;  for  while  producing,  it  spends  the  entire  gross  value,  and,  neveilhe- 
less,  after  it  has  produced,  it  yet  has  the  entire  gross  value  left  in  another  shape. 

He  then  goes  on  and  says  that  if  with  British  commodities  you  purchase  British 
commodities  you  replace  two  British  capitals ;  but  if  with  British  commodities  j-ou 
purchase  foreign  commodities  you  replace  only  one  British  capital.  That  is  to  say, 
you  might  have  had  the  entire  gross  value  of  two  industries  to  spend,  and  thereby  also 
to  create  and  sustain  markets  ;  but  you  are  content  to  have  the  value  and  the  market 
of  one  industry  only. 

These  observations  of  Adam  Smith,  though  demonstrably  true,  derive  additional 
weight  from  the  quarter  from  which  they  come.  They  are  the  admissions  of  the 
founder  of  the  existing  school  of  political  economists,  on  a  point  of  vital  importance, 
so  vital  that  it  affects  the  entire  theory  of  free  trade. 

At  the  risk,  therefore,  of  being  charged  with  prolixity  and  repetition,  I  venture 
to  invite  the  candid  and  serious  attention  of  the  reader  to  a  further  consideration  of 
this  problem. 

The  entire  price  or  gross  value  of  every  homemade  article  constitutes  net  gain, 
net  revenue,  net  income  to  British  subjects.  Not  a  portion  of  the  value,  but  the  whole 
value,  is  resolvable  into  net  gain,  income  or  revenue  maintaining  British  families,  and 
creating  or  sustaining  British  markets.  Purchase  British  articles  with  British  articles 
and  you  create  t2vo  such  aggregate  values  and  two  such  markets  for  British  industry. 

Change  )-our  policy— purchase  foreign  articles  with  British  articles,  and  you  now 
create  only  one  value  for  your  own  benefit  instead  of  creating  tzco,  and  only  one  mar- 
ket for  British  industry  instead  o{  tivo.     You  lose  by  the  change  of  policy  the  power 


I  Sophis 


;  of  Free  Trade,  Chapter  4. 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


of  spending  tlie  entire  value  of  one  industry,  which  you  might  have  had,  as  well  as  the 
other,  and  3-ou  lose  a  market  for  British  industry  to  the  full  extent  of  the  expenditure 
of  that  superseded  industry. 

A  small  difference  in  price  may  cause  the  loss,  but  will  not  compensate  the  nation 
for  that  loss.  For  example,  suppose  England  can  produce  an  article  for  ^loo  and  can 
import  it  for  ^99.  By  importing  it  instead  of  producing  it  she  gains  ^1 ;  but  though 
she  pay  for  it  with  her  own  manufactures,  she  loses  (not,  indeed,  by  the  exchange 
itself,  but  by  the  collapse  of  the  suspended  industry)  ^100  of  wealth  which  she  might 
have  had  to  spend  by  creating  the  value  at  home;  that  is  to  say,  on  the  balance  she 
loses  ^99  which  she  might  have  had  in  addition  by  producing  both  commodities  at 
home. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  what  the  producer  loses  the  consumer  gains.  The  pro- 
ducer loses  .^100,  the  consumer  gains  £1.  The  nation,  moreover,  loses  the  markets 
which  that  superseded  industry  supported. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  directly  and  indirectly  90  per  cent 
of  the  value  of  every  commodity  produced,  represents  labor  distributed 
among  producers  from  the  first  human  effort  until  the  product  is  finished. 
In  its  distribution  a  commodity  is  packed,  .shipped,  handled  and  sold  by 
labor  which  must  be  rewarded  for  its  efforts  at  every  step  that  is  taken, 
until  it  is  delivered  to  the  consumer.  And  labor  does  not  stop  here. 
Effort  is  required  to  cook  and  prepare  food  for  the  table.  To  trace  to  the 
bottom  the  cost  price  of  every  commodit^^  to  the  consumer,  we  find  that 
it  constitutes  net  spendable  income. 

To  bring  the  proposition  laid  down  by  Adam  Smith  more  clearly  to 
the  mind  of  the  reader,  let  us  assume  that  woolen  goods  to  the  value  of 
$100,000,000  are  made  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  which  are  exchanged 
for  $100,000,000  of  the  farm  products  of  the  State  of  Minnesota.  This 
gives  to  the  people  of  the  State  of  Minnesota  and  to  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts each  $100,000,000  of  spendable  income,  which  is  distributed 
among  the  people  of  these  respective  States,  going  to  sustain  their  inhabi- 
tants and  adding  so  much  to  their  wealth.  The  co.st  of  producing  the 
$100,000,000  of  woolen  goods  in  Massachusetts  has  been  paid  out  and 
distributed  among  the  people  in  their  production;  the  same  is  true  of 
the  agricultural  produce  of  the  State  of  Minnesota.  This  production 
constitutes  $200,000,000,  of  net  spendable  income  for  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  Suppose  now,  that  the  people  of  Minnesota  accept  the 
advice  of  free  traders,  cease  buying  of  Massachusetts  and  exchange  their 
agricultural  produce  for  woolen  goods  made  in  Bradford,  England. 
That  this  would  result  in  depriving  the  State  of  Massachusetts  of  $100,- 
000,000  of  spendable  income,  and  add  a  like  amount  to  the  spendable 
income  of  the  city  of  Bradford,  there  can  be  no  question.  Bradford  would 
gain  what  Massachusetts  had  lost.  Instead  of  the  United  States  now 
having  $200,000,000  of  .spendable  income,  it  has  but  the  $100,000,000 
produced  in  Minnesota  and  there  has  been  added  to  the  spendable  income 
of  England  the  preci.se  amount  that  the  United  States  has  lost  ($100,000,- 
000).    Suppose  the  people  of  Minnesota,  by  making  this  change,  purchase 


TAEIFF  QUESTION  IX  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


their  woolen  goods  in  Bradford  at  a  lower  price  than  thej-  had  formerly 
paid  in  Massachusetts,  and  thereby  saved  on  the  purchase  $1,000,000. 
While  the  consumers  of  Minnesota  have  saved  $1,000,000,  the  nation  has 
lost  $99,000,000.  But  in  the  fir.st  place,  the  people  of  Minnesota  had 
heretofore  been  selling  their  produce  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts  at 
better  prices  than  the  English  people  could  aiTord  to  pay;  they  were 
selling  to  a  home  market,  the  best  in  the  world,  and  saving  transporta- 
tion to  a  much  more  distant  one.  Now,  Bradford  will  not  buy  agricul- 
tural produce  of  Minnesota  unless  it  can  be  purchased  cheaper  than  that 
of  other  countries.  Hence,  Minnesota  is  now  offering  her  farm  produce 
for  sale  in  a  glutted  market  of  constantly  declining  prices,  in  competition 
with  the  poorest  paid  farm  labor  in  the  world;  besides,  England  will  not 
continue  to  purchase  the  farm  produce  of  Minnesota  excepting  at  the 
price  level  of  the  world,  which  must  always  be  the  lowest  price  at  which 
similar  produce  can  be  purchased  elsewhere.  But  whatever  the  price 
may  be,  if  this  exchange  continues,  a  foreign  market  has  simply  been 
found  for  the  produce  of  Minnesota.  What  then  must  become  of  the 
woolen  industry  of  Massachusetts,  which  has  been  .superseded?  They  can 
gain  back  the  market  of  Minnesota  which  they  have  lost,  only  by  reducing 
wages  and  cost  of  production  to  the  level  of  Bradford.  But  this  again, 
diminishes  the  spendable  income  of  the  nation,  and  is  taken  out  of  the 
earnings  of  labor.  Unless  this  is  done,  what  are  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  do?  In  order,  then,  to  compensate  Ma.ssachusetts,  the  labor 
and  capital  must  either  be  turned  to  the  production  of  something  besides 
woolen  goods,  or  a  foreign  market  must  be  found  for  their  products.  It 
could  hardly  be  expected  that  they  could  find  a  market  for  their  products 
in  South  America,  because  South  America  could  buy  cheaper  in  Brad- 
ford. But  a  market  must  be  found  for  the  produce  of  the  labor  and 
capital  of  Massachusetts  if  it  remain  employed,  for  whatever  they  make, 
either  at  home  or  in  some  foreign  country.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  when 
an  industry  already  established  is  superseded  by  competing  imports,  that 
hfo  new  markets  must  be  found.  There  must  first  be  a  market  found 
for  the  farmers  of  Minnesota,  and  then  there  must  be  a  market  found  for 
the  woolen  manufactures  of  Massachusetts.  To  say  that  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  would  find  a  foreign  market  for  whatever  they  make,  is  to 
suppose  that  the  foreign  market  is  always  just  as  large  as  desired,  or  to 
contend  that  a  home  market  would  be  found,  assumes  that  a  home  market 
is  always  unlimited.  To  assume  that  the  capital  and  labor  of  the  super- 
seded industry  of  Massachusetts  would  find  employment  in  some  other 
industry,  involves  a  dangerous  uncertainty.  No  free  trader  has  yet 
attempted  to  name  or  point  out  any  of  the  industries  in  which  the  capital 
and  labor  of  a  superseded  industry  would  find  investment  and  employ- 
ment. As  Mr.  Byles  says:  "Alas,  this  is  the  thing  easier  said  than  done. 
To  find  productive  employment  for  the  people  is  just  the  very  thing  which 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSIOX 


is  SO  supremely  difficult  as  to  be  often  pronounced  impossible.  It  is  the 
problem  remaining  for  the  true  political  economist  to  solve.  Its  solution 
will  be  an  event  not  less  brilliant  and  far  more  important  to  mankind 
than  the  discoverj-  of  the  solar  S}'stem." 

But  the  proposition  of  the  free  trader  does  not  stop  here.  While  it 
might  be  possible  to  increase  our  exports  of  agricultural  produce  by 
$100,000,000,  yet  this  could  not  be  done  without  glutting  foreign  mar- 
kets. The  scheme  also  contemplates  the  destruction  of  our  silk,  cotton, 
iron  and  steel,  and  whole  manufacturing  system,  which  if  accomplished 
would  diminish  the  spendable  income  of  the  nation  in  proportion  as  the 
foreign  trade  of  the  country  increased.  The  proposition  announced  by 
Adam  Smith  has  stood  the  test  of  experience  and  has  not  in  the  least  been 
weakened  by  the  ingenious  assaults  of  free  trade  theorists. 

This  is  the  precise  proposition  pre.sented  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  to-da3^  Under  protection  we  have  developed  our  mines,  manufac- 
tures and  agriculture  to  .such  an  extent  that  70,000,000  of  people  are 
practically  suppl5-ing  each  others'  wants  through  an  exchange  of  native 
commodities.  In  1890  "the  products  of  our  factories  amounted  to  $9,000,- 
000,006,  and  of  our  farms,  gardens,  forests  and  fisheries  to  over  $7,000,- 
000,000,  constituting  a  total  production  of  over  $16,000,000,000,  and  yet 
this  was  not  all.  All  of  this  vast  sum  con.stituted  net.spendable  income 
to  the  American  people  and  formed  the  basis  upon  which  was  carried 
on  our  vast  system  of  transportation,  our  wholesale  and  retail  trade  and 
all  the  various  departments  of  industrial  and  commercial  activity.  This 
formed  the  basis  of  the  business  transactionsof  the  country,  which  have  com- 
monlj'  been  estimated  by  high  authorities  at  over  $50,000,000,000  a  year. 

The  magnitude  and  importance  of  our  home  trade  may  be  illustrated 
by  comparing  the  United  States  with  the  rest  of  the  world.  Our  70,000,- 
000,  or  about  one-twentieth  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  globe  (which  are 
estimated  at  1,500,000,000)  according  to  a  careful  estimate  made  by 
Speaker  Reed,  are  equal  as  con.sumers — as  a  market  for  our  own  and  the 
world's  production — compared  with  the  rest  of  the  world  to  700,000,000. 
According  to  Mulhall's  Dictionary  of  Statistics,  we  manufacture  one- 
third  of  the  world's  product,  that  is,  one-half  as  much  as  all  the  world 
outside  of  ourselves.  We  use  all  of  our  manufactures  or  their  equivalent 
at  home.  We  consume  one-fourth  of  all  the  sugar  produced  in  the  world, 
one-third  of  all  the  coffee,  one-third  of  the  iron  and  steel,  one-quarter  of 
the  cotton,  one-third  of  the  wool,  nearly  one-half  of  all  the  coal,  and 
one-half  of  all  the  tin  plate.  We  raise  twice  as  much  cotton,  and  ten 
times  as  much  corn  as  the  remainder  of  the  world  put  together.  We 
produce  one-third  of  the  world's  production  of  gold  and  silver.  We  have 
one-third  of  the  world's  steam  power.  We  grant  twice  as  many  patents 
annually  as  the  rest  of  the  world.  One-third  the  wealth  daily  accumu- 
lated by  the  whole  world  is  acquired  by  the  United  States.     While  the 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


debt  of  the  rest  of  the  world  increased  during  the  decade  from  iSSo  to 
1890  over  $1,000,000,000,  the  debt  of  the  United  States  during  the  same 
period  was  reduced  by  exactly  that  amount.  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  at  a 
speech  in  Buffalo,  November  9,  1895,  said: 

The  whole  of  the  tonuage  on  the  oceans  of  the  world  last  year  was  about  140,000,- 
000  tons,  while  the  tonnage  of  the  railways  of  the  world,  carried  100  miles,  was  about 
[,400,000,000  of  tons.  There  are  4oo,coo  miles  of  railways  in  the  world,  •f  which  iSo,ooo 
are  in  the  United  States.  Of  the  1,400,000,000  of  tons,  carried  100  miles  last  year  on 
the  railways  of  the  world,  800,000,000  were  carried  on  the  railways  of  the  United 
States.  You  take  the  600,000,000  tons  carried  100  miles  from  the  railways  of  the  world, 
outside  of  the  United  States,  and  then  you  add  to  it  140,000,000  carried  on  the  ocean  in 
the  commerce  of  the  world,  upon  the  seas,  and  we  still  have  in  the  800,000,000  tons 
carried  on  the  railways  of  the  United  States  60,000,000  of  tons  more  than  on  all  the 
railways  of  the  world  outside  of  the  United  .States  and  in  all  the  ocean  connnerce  of 
the  world  put  together. 

These  are  the  marvelous  results  of  an  immense  home  trade  built  up 
under  the  fostering  and  stimulating  influence  of  the  policy  of  protection, 
but  more  and  above  all  this,  there  are  more  farms  and  homes  owned  bj- 
the  working  men  of  the  United  States  to-day  than  are  owned  l3y  all  the 
laborers  of  the  rest  of  the  world  combined. 

But  let  us  a.ssume  again  that  instead  of  relying  oh  this  home  trade 
we  change  our  polic\'  and  engage  in  foreign  trade.  Assuming  that  of  the 
$16,000,000,000  of  home  production  we  transfer  $5,000,000,000  to  foreign 
trade  and  exchange  it  for  $5,000,000,000  of  competing  commodities 
which  we  import  from  Europe.  This  would  subtract  $5,000,000,000  of 
spendable  income  from  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  add  that  much 
to  the  spendable  income  of  Europe.  Although  our  "foreign  trade  in 
exports  and  imports  has  therebj'  reached  $10,000,000,000  in  the  aggre- 
gate, j^et  our  domestic  production  or  spendable  income  would  be  reduced 
to  $ii,ooo,ooo,oon.  But  we  should  still  have  the  same  number  of  people 
endeavoring  to  live  by  productive  industries,  and  struggling  to  underbid 
their  neighbors  for  a  share  in  the  foreign  trade. 

The  calamities  which  would  befall  our  people  by  such  change  of 
policy  are  beyond  description.  Whatever  the  efforts  might  be  on  the 
part  of  those  stiperseded  to  find  employment  in  other  industries,  it  would 
bring  about  the  very  result  described  by  Malthus.  War,  pestilence, 
di.sease  and  famine  would  relieve  from  starvation  those  unable  to  survive, 
until  emigration  or  death  had  thiimed  our  over-populated  country.  This 
brings  out  more  clearly  the  supreme  importance  and  advantage  to  be 
derived  from  the  development  of  native  resources  and  indu.stries.  It  is 
through  a  diversity  of  industries  and  pursuits  that  increased  opportuni- 
ties for  employment  are  created  and  the  spendable  income  of  the  uias.ses 
augmented.  This  prevents  the  constant  increase  in  population  from 
pressing  on  subsistence  and  affords  a  remedy  which  Malthus  believed 
could  be  found  only  in  a  reduced  number  of  inhabitants. 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


The  opportunities  for  emploj-ment  and  business  enterprises  through 
a  development  of  domestic  resources  and  a  vast  home  trade,  secure  a 
wider  and  more  equal  distribution  of  wealth  than  is  possible  under  a  one- 
sided trade  with  foreign  countries.  The  ability  of  laborers,  artisans, 
mechanics,  clerks,  salesmen,  the  professional  and  commercial  classes,  to 
buy  and  own  homes  and  accumulate  property,  is  increased  as  the  home 
trade  expands.  The  most  unequal  distribution  of  wealth  among  civilized 
nations  is  found  in  England  under  the  policy  of  free  trade,  where  the  sub- 
merged class  is  growing  in  numbers,  the  middle  and  artisan  classes  are 
being  leveled  down  to  the  submerged,  while  the  wealth  is  year  by  year, 
centering  in  the  hands  of  the  few.  On  the  other  hand,  the  history  of 
nations  teaches  that  the  most  equal  distribution  of  wealth  is  found  in  those 
countries  which  have  developed  domestic  resources  and  industries  through 
protective  tariffs.  This  is  confirmed  not  only  by  the  recent  experience  of 
Continental  countries,  but  especially  by  the  marvelous  industrial  develop- 
ment which  has  taken  place  in  the  United  States  under  protection  during 
the  past  third  of  a  century,  where  the  toiling  masses  are  receiving  the 
highest  wages  ever  known,  are  able  to  purchase  more  with  a  day's  work 
and  are  enjoying  a  degree  of  comfort,  happiness,  luxury,  and  accumu- 
lating property  to  an  extent  unknown  in  former  times  or  in  any  countrj' 
practicing  free  trade.  ' '  The  rich  are  not  growing  richer  and  the  poor 
poorer  ' '  where  the  polic}'  of  protection  is  pursued. 

Recent  statistics  in  proof  of  this  proposition  have  been  made  public 
by  the  Report  on  the  Statistics  of  Labor  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts 
for  1894  (page  296),  based  on  the  records  of  estates  probated  in  that 
commonwealth  from  1829  to  189 1.     It  says: 

The  average  holding  in  the  large  estates  has  only  moderately  increased  during 
the  sixty  years,  having  risen  from  8137, 71S  to  $167,347;  while  the  average  holding  in 
the  small  estates  has  nearly  doubled,  rising  from  S2604  to  I4992. 

The  classification  placed  all  estates  under  $50,000  among  small  estates 
and  all  over  $50,000  among  large  estates. 

Not  only  are  the  average  accumulations  of  the  people  of  moderate 
estates  increasing,  but  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  a  large  percentage  of 
the  men  who  accumulate  fortunes  from  $50,000  to  $100,000,  and  even 
more,  began  life  without  a  dollar;  that  one  of  the  distinguishing  features 
of  our  industrial  conditions  is  found  in  the  opportunities  afforded  to  men 
of  ambition,  energy,  industr}-,  ability  and  genius  to  succeed  in  the  various 
occupations  and  fields  of  enterprise.  Moreover,  the  high  wages  and  steady 
employment  of  mechanics  and  artisans,  permit  savings  from  surplus  earn- 
ings which  tend  to  increase  the  independence  and  comfort  of  the  masses. 
In  fact,  the  tendency  in  the  United  States  under  protection,  has  been  to 
elevate  and  improve  the  material  welfare  of  all. 

Such  results  achieved  by  a  people  engaged  in  the  diversity  of  indtistries 
of  a  great  manufacturing  and  commercial  country  furnish  the  strongest 


Distribu 
wealth. 


TARIFF  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


vindication  of  the  wisdom  of   that  fiscal    policy  which   stimulates   and 
fosters  the  combined  productive  industries  of  a  nation. 
Conclusion. 

The  means  by  which  the  industrial  development  and  the  greatest 
material  prosperity  have  been  secured  are  as  unmistakably  revealed  by  the 
history  of  nations  as  any  other  fact  in  the  evolution  of  mankind. 

Man  has  taken  up  his  abode  on  ever>'  continent,  island,  and  in  every 
clime.  Wherever  he  goes  he  finds  a  storehouse  of  treasure  awaiting  the 
magic  touch  of  his  genius  and  industry.  There  is  not  a  localit>'  between 
the  frigid  zones  that  does  not  hold  within  itself  those  elements  which,  if 
properly  developed,  will  produce  inexhaustible  riches,  and  in  which  the 
highest  civilization  may  be  attained.  That  spirit  and  enterprise  which 
have  ever  animated  the  human  race;  that  confidence  in  the  bounties  of 
nature  and  in  his  own  capabilities,  have  impelled  him  to  settle  every 
country.  In  his  development  and  progress  he  has  not  sought  after  the 
easy  places;  those  where  nature  is  most  generous,  those  where  he  could 
satisfy  his  wants  with  the  least  exertion.  He  has  not  gathered  about  the 
bread  tree,  nor  plucked  ■  only  the  fruits  of  the  tropics  where  he  could  live 
in  idleness  and  ease.  Prompted  by  some  great  cause,  stimulated  by  some 
great  motive,  guided  by  some  great  force,- he  has  been  obedient  to  the 
divine  command,  to  multiply  and  replenish  the  earth  and  exercise  dominion 
over  every  living  creature  and  every  force  of  nature. 

With  high  and  lofty  aims  and  indomitable  will  he  has  risen  step  by 
step  from  a  condition  of  ignorance  to  a  high  state  of  civilization.  At  first, 
in  his  weak  condition,  unconscious  of  his  powers,  unaided  by  past  experi- 
ence, and  unable  to  penetrate  the  darkness  of  the  future,  he  advanced 
slowly  and  with  great  difficulty.  How  changed  to-day!  With  unlimited 
powers  and  opportunities  the  lamp  of  experience,  which  has  guided  his 
footsteps  for  centuries,  so  lights  up  the  world  about  him,  that  the  future 
is  no  longer  hidden  from  his  view.  Life  is  no  longer  an  inexplicable 
mystery.  Man  now  is  not  sailing  an  unknown  sea  without  chart  or  com- 
pass, but  has  discovered  laws,  forces,  rules  of  individual  conduct  and 
principles  for  the  government  of  society  and  nations  which  mark  the  shoals 
and  breakers  to  be  avoided.  It  is  by  a  comprehension  of  the  causes  and 
means  by  which  he  has  reached  this  high  eminence  that  it  becomes 
possible  for  man  to  move  on  in  the  same  course,  and  to  bring  ever>'  crea- 
ture, every  country  and  every  locality  into  that  high  state  which  will 
enable  him  to  accomplish  and  fulfil  his  ordained  destiny.  Society  has 
been  slow  in  forming  a  just  and  proper  appreciation  of  the  importance  of 
labor.  In  ancient  times  work  was  looked  upon  as  menial,  degrading  and 
beneath  the  dignity  of  a  noble  citizen.  Manual  pursuits,  in  the  eyes  of 
the  broad  and  enlightened  manhood  of  the  nineteenth  century,  are  held 
in  the  highest  esteem.  The  dignity  of  labor,  the  honor  attached  to  honest 
toil  and  legitimate  business  enterprises,  have  elevated  industrj-  to  a  plane 


ECONOMIC  DISCUSSION. 


of  life  which  has  destroyed  caste,  and  raised  these  pursuits,  whether  pro- 
fessional or  industrial,  to  the  eminence  to  which  they  are  entitled. 

The  marvelous  industrial  growth,  which  is  to-day  attracting  so  much 
attention  anc".  fills  so  large  a  place  in  the  social  life  of  the  world,  has 
sprung  into  existence  within  the  past  four  centuries,  and  has  achieved  its 
greatest  triumphs  within  the  nineteenth  century.  It  had  its  birth  in 
western  Europe  ;  Ital}',  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  Holland,  Switzerland 
and  England  early  became  the  seat  of  agriculttire,  mining,  manufactur- 
ing, trade  and  commerce.  The  .spirit  of  modern  industry,  which  origin- 
ated with  these  people,  has  been  imparted  to  everj-  civilized  nation,  and 
to-day  the  Briti.sh  colonies,  the  republics  of  North  and  South  America, 
and  also  Russia,  realize  the  benefits  each  nation  may  derive  from  a  system 
of  diversified  industry  and  the  development  of  domestic  resources.  Japan 
is  taking  on  a  new  industrial  life,  and  China  is  manifesting  a  similar 
awakening.  If  there  is  one  spirit  to-day  above  another  which  dominates 
the  industrial  Vitality  of  all  these  nations,  it  arises  from  the  idea  that  the 
material  welfare  and  independence  of  the  people  of  every  locality  can 
most  surely  be  promoted  and  maintained  bj-  affording  the  largest  oppor- 
tunities for  the  masses  to  obtain  employment  in  the  development  of  all 
the  resources  of  their  own  counti-y.  The  existence  of  rich  agricultural 
regions,  surrounding  beautiful  and  thriving  cities,  where  a  readj'  exchange 
of  the  fruits  of  labor  can  be  carried  on  between  the  agriculturist  and 
manufacturer,  .securing  employment  in  diversified  industries,  fitted  to  the 
varied  aptitudes  and  capabilities  of  all,  making  it  possible  for  a  contented 
and  prosperous  people  to  enjoy  comforts  and  luxuries  of  life,  is  one  of  the 
chief  triumphs  of  protective  economics. 

The  industrial  achievements  of  the  world  are  the  result  of  causes,  the 
operation  of  principles  and  forces,  which  stand  out  prominently  in  the 
history  of  nations.  The  policies  successfully  pursued  by  prosperous 
commercial  nations  are  well  known.  The  economic  policy,  if  it  maj^  be 
called  a  policy,  of  nations  which  are  least  prosperous,  and  whose  people 
are  in  the  most  miserable  and  degraded  condition,  is  equally  well  known. 
There  are  certain  facts  which  are  so  prominent  in  the  history  of  mankind, 
that  they  have  passed  beyond  the  realm  of  discussion.  Neither  the  con- 
version of  the  world  to  the  Christian  religion,  the  establishment  of  wise 
ordinances  of  civil  government,  nor  the  industrial  growth  of  prosperous 
nations,  has  come  about  by  leaving  man  to  the  blind  fate  of  chance,  or 
by  his  submission  to  the  control  of  that  course  of  events  called,  by  free 
trade  economists,  "the  laws  of  nature."  It  has  not  been  by  inaction, 
but  by  aggressive  exertion,  that  everything  worth  being  preserved  has 
been  secured.  In  every  instance,  from  the  earliest  time  to  the  present,  it 
has  been  by  a  control  and  direction  exercised  bj^  man  over  man,  proceed- 
ing from  the  combined  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the  people  associated  together 
in  societies  and  governments,  that  ever>'  blessing  has  been  secured. 


MISCELLANEOUS  STATISTICS. 


U-;  O  f^  l^  0>  rO  CTiCC  CS  XJ  ONVJ  r^i  CN  i-  rO  "-  •^'O  c 
O  O  tT  M  rO  lO^  M"0  ONCT^'-vO  C^ONOCO  O  I^C 
r^"^"  o'vO'vD   I-'  -^  '^  c*5  O'  (N  vxfvd   O'  fO  TOO    Q^\6  c 

CO  "*  CA  lo^  «o  00  CH  o  CO  rr  r^vo  o  ffi  i-^  lo  m  on  ■« 


)_  ^  "-_  lO  ^  OM^ 

r  d^i-rco'vjO  -^ 


)  \0  MD    O    O    -^M 


8'  o"  o"  o'm^'md"  cr^  -T  c>  (n  fo  rc^"  q'  6  6  6  o  6  d  6  d  lo 


ONQO  ^0    OMO  r 


i 

::;:::::;::::::;:..:::::::;■.  :^|?kjj 

1 

.  .*ft 

c?'S  O^  'h 

. 

MCO   n   iO(N    lOO    '-'    <N    O   rO-rhcO'^'-    rOC    O    fOO   0\0   r-^i—   rOM    Om^--    Of^/—    f'^iO 
T3-a>r-M   I>.(N    ►-■   •-■    woo    -   -^ror^CNVO   in\D   rO  l--  rrj  ro  '-i   .'tf-  lO  lO^   f^i  "N  vO    OJ    O    ^T  u 

O  C  lo  r-^20  vor^'^ior^io—  O  CT^O  o--  ct-n  onco  m  o  -^  r-*  O  »o  »-  lo-o^  ro  — ^  o^  '-^ 

cT  rO  CR  rO  ON  -^  ^  t^  uS  i-T  O'  rC  O'  CT-MD  NO    t^  o"  r^  rC\o"  tC«^~  t^  rC  o'  '-'''-'  fN    i--  NC    d^vc    rj 

i-H  lo  O  ^co  r^ONc^>o  r^w  loo  Onvjd  (Tj-^roo  lO'-'  w  mcj  mn  r-^cc  ■^  on  on  ir:  cn  i~~ 

O    t^  —'    O    On  lO  C^    f^NO    ON  O  ,O^C/3  '^    inmrO'^CN    t^f^  ITJCO    ON  lO  0N\0    (N    h-  v^    lO  r^.  '"'^  o^ 

cr>  c5^^'  <^  r^co'  *^  i-Too'"  c"  fO  — '  lo  i--  i/^  i-'oT  cT  (n  vo  '-"cc'  rCvo"  rT  >-'  rC  ro  d"  cf«  -rf  i-  oc  co 

►i   W   M    r^ -^  uo  u-)\0   t^r-ONr^iOt^O^O    O   IN    ir.\0  NO    fD  (N  unCC  OC    aM:^NO   iOv£)  no  no 


<  ro  t^CO    ^  ON 


lO  O    t^  vo  ON  O  NO   OnnD    fO  On  C^-  N   "^ 

;  o  ON  rj  ^  v£;  U-,  «oy3  o^cc  f;;  ^1  f:^  '^ 


jsg^^^^-^ 


o  o  "  0  r-.cr.N  ^  ^  i^co  o  vo  co  mOM^ovo  on  >' 


■  mvo  t-^x  Gn  O 


)  so  00  00  00  00  CO  « 


3IISCELLANE0US  STATISTICS. 


■R 

So 

.  f^ 

•     •  ^^ 

•^s- 

i&^i:e>oH 

1 

■8 

■I- 

•fl^il^s 

•  ^ 

.^. 

•  ..5S, 

■t^Br^^iMs  ■ 

;«* 

.VO      . 

5 

'.  "    '. 

;2 

^7i^SS%?^^  ■ 

•rf  -fj-  CT>  IN    (N    0^\0    0^  O    '-'    M-  li^ 

ON  r^  w  o'co'  o  ^-^  t^  <^-t  d^c7  o'^'co  i^  in  ro  4  ^  -^  ^oTvo"  oi  m"  o'  rC  ff  cc""  cTco'co' 
oo  ONfOMco  iNco  o)  -rj-o^  ^~.^^^--.a^lntn^-^  nOco  '-  cn  (-00  O  r-^-^i^O  O  ^ow  e^ 
"-^  O   fO  q^  q_  t^X    i-H    O^O   t^in-^O^^-oi    0^0  'T^   -'    0^  -^^    CN    lO  t--  '^  I>.CO  CO   -^  ■<?;  rr 


I^OCO    O   t^O   "^O^OOOi 
r>  O   r^   rOCO   rO  ro  r^  r^  CS   I 

)  r^»o  t^vo  in  CO  CO  t^ioj 


)  OM-^  O    invO    ^  oco  VD    -*  fO  <N    OMr^CO    O)    m  fOX    'd-  O    re 

fO  in  a\  -+  w  fo  i^o  o  cN  r-^co  t-^M  p-.  lna^^l--oo^  o 

V  t-~20  ^ONC^m  p-lVO'~'a^^^C^l-Tj-T;l-l-(C^^lrJ0_  <^v^d_  >--_  <n 

'.  ^  rA  in  S^^  dsrT)  in-o"  -f  pT  in  tn  i-^  ro^cT  cT  ^'  rC  tP  cT 

s  i^  inx  -^u^  ^  ^^coo^a^OfO"ln  o>co  m  i^  ct  in  on  o 


a%S  o^co  o  oMn  ^  r^OT  c 


t^  ON^   w  CO    o 


■  Tj-CO  \0  r^  '-  GO   ro  o 

^  ^^o  CO  m  o"  ^03cc  rn  o'aJ"  -v. 


,£:§;; 


.       ,  - -  3  »n  n  CO    lOOD  CO  MD    ro  ■rt'^    -rf 

C\0  ^  "^^  *^  *■;  O  ^_  '"l,  '^„  '^  "^  ■>:  "^^  0_ 
~  t^vo"  lOco"  o  -^  t-'^  in\c  (N  -^  •- 


stls^sHSsI  r^  kI^s^I 

fl'HHS&^.^-^^^g^l.^ 

1 

fi^?.^oUr^%-.r^r^"^^BB 

^gHSs^SSH€fasl^5 

0^  "   t^>0  ^O   P.  fi.00  C»O^IN"o2f?«CTl 

«2  22^^§5§^gS^S=8S*S- 

%^^%iBni^^r?^r^"^'^^ 

rg'Hsig^isfsit^ii- 

■s 

kI5I§?&s^£^M^  El  8^1- 

^Hl^ti-^^?'!  SHs;! 

^ 

........o,.,...o 

s^^  ?!=  3;I-C  ^^i  %  l^i  s^l'  t 

SatlR^?:-^^8'5&S? 

nr^un^^sr^iiB^^ 

iRi^fisESIsr^KHS 

° 

S  %S?;S%S55>2^cg  8|  5;S5o  »  ?3^ 

f;g;'§^3g>?,^5<g.J|^S'S.S|.S, 

is^?nS-: 


I  c3i 


MISCELLANEO  US  STA  TISTICS. 


||^ 


O  ^   "  ^         JO 

10\0  ^    IT,  '^  (N       ,     I-- 


■o  ON  i"^  -^  lO  T  :> 


5  w  n 

8R  ■  •     K 


1^  -ig^^^s^Usts-^l: 


fO^    rO  rO  fO  ^  r--00    r^  ^  lO  O*  C4    VD 


O^'.D^  -^^  O  X    ON  O    »0^  ^^^  '^    O^    ro  m  in  M  y:j    (N    PJ  C7J    I 

rC^piocoovor^wio<fitCuorCo"-^"Scf\^  r^^"  cs"  < 

.  _    .        -       _    _     .       _    lO  (N    (N    lO  lO  f^  ^  g^  lOVg    ^    ^    Ji?  ^  _  _  , 


c^  o 


M   t^  LO  f^.  rj    ro  —    CN    ONX    O^X    rO  '-'  00  ^    CI    -    u^^O    O  )P   ^  C   ^X   <N    0\  m  -^   t^  <^    uoiy^--.    cr>  O^ 

\o  i-h'  o"  -"  »-'  vo  ONx'  f^  d"  vD  c5~  r^  t^  lo  "-T  cf>  ^'  x"  x'  '-''-""•-'  cr-  -^  -4  rO  O*  —'"  '-'  rCoo'  "'  O^  rf  UO  r^l 
0:1  ^c^w  ^fN  <-  (N  rOON'^  -^X  "sO  •-  X  ^^^D  X  r--X  O  OM:--OX  ^  »Of'  r^X  ^  **  ON  Ti-  ON  ro 
tN^  t--.  p-_  i^  '^^"^^^  "1  "1^,  --^  in  01  X  -1"  CN  r^  t-;  c>i^^_  *^  "^  "^  "3^  "-  *"-  *^,  '-'_  '^^  CN^  o^  10  r^  <N 
rT  ro  --r  <N  10  •--'  '^f  ON  ro  10  '-^*"  o'm5  rC  -t  '-''0  o"  O  •-<"  n  x'  pT  cT  r^  On  ro  w'  -^  rf  \£r  u^ND  rC  ^  cf  r^ 
r^r^r-.iorD'^^iow  i-^  m  m  cOrj--:tio-:t--^'*'^'^C  O  '-  O  C  0^<^  fr>'<^  loy^  ^D  in  -^  r^vo 


o_  q^x_ 

n  v^  r/^  d    -^  t^  ON  O^^J 
ON  UO  lO^    ONX'  O  X    I 


X.  ex  m  c  X  I 
O  ro  o  «  c^vo'  10  (N  tC  -rt  cf  fC  (s  rC) 


«  rO  ON  O  rDX  \OXTt'-i\C)  (N<N^WVO  rOO  <Nrl-Om«  Of^O«  0^^0  lO(Nt^-^0t^«r^ 
ON  CO  ■-  ON  O  lOvO  Tt  ONX  X  Ov-^^NX  •-  ^O  ONf-H  cDQiOtN  rf-^t^—  a\T}-  ICX  rO  -^  On  O 
MrOWi-iNM.-.rOW<NNrO"^^iOiOu:>  iOV£)  \0   t^CO   ON  t^W  t^  r^vo   t^vO   t^X  X    O  X  X  X 


•-'  Tfr--r^in—  loo  ci  o-  Q  loc  loroON--  -i-^D  x  ►-■  mONinO  r-^ON'-co  f^\C  '^  t^  t^  a\ 

Cr>  ro  'TT^O    Q*  <^  ON  '-■'  On  <N    ►-'~  10  ■-'  o'^O    Chx'  (N    -fvOX"  (N    .-'  (N    ir^     '"''"'***     ' 
O    rn  10  W  VD    rOX    — |-  —  v£)    lOiO^N    ON-t-f-iOO    ^1    ioOnONioO    •- 

10  ro^o  q_  CTN  '■'2  ^,  "^P  '^";  "2  ^  '"  '^'^  ^^  -  x  x  --^^  o_md  -r  fr^c 
Tj-r--^-"  r^inON'-  rf-n  d"'o'  -^  lo  t^^  rf-rfcT-Tt-w  "ix  r^o^ 


O  o  (NX  ^c^  -rmio, 
m  -__  c  -^.  ^'  f^  in£^  ?  ? ' 

f^  r^  pT  CN    Cn'  in    ^VD    (n'  ^  I 


o_  -^^^  q_  c^  q_  0)_  -   . 


;-^W    O    ONOvDinONf^JTCNTfCN    W    W    f^OW    O-^wi 

■  (N  uoyD  i>.  ro  ON  ON  M  tN   ON\o  ONOx  w  (N  r*r-.0  w  f^-' 


t-^X    On  O   '-'    (N   rT)  "^  10^   t^X    ON 


O   '-'    f^   rT)  "^  10^   t^X    ON  ( 


?IISrELLA  NEO  US  STA  TISTICS. 


OVOVO   OOO^   <N   «-'VO00\DC0>sO    Q"    OQ    f^^C  vO   -^  (N  CO   lO  «   C^CO    O*  fO 

cz}cz3cc  o^cs*x)  lo  c^cc  c^oo  lo  ti-  w  o^^_  cn_  io^_^  "^  "^r  ^„  '^^  *^  "^  '?  ^  ^ 

O    f^  O    tO^    cJ    O  ^    lO  CO  ro  '-'^  -^  "  CC    -    q^  q^  ^  C^  t-^  fO  CN_  «    (N_CO_  W^  GTs  lO 

x"  (^  lox  lovo'  wvxTvo"  r^\£r  lO'O  ^  o'vo  oc'^o  -^f  in  ro  c^  lo  -^  fo  oT  m"  cT  ci 


of  d"  W  ^  -Tx'  (N  X"  O'^"  in^"  CNMO  w  vo  W  -^^  rO  -f  CO 
Tj-X  cO  O  "rJ-^O  "  \0  (^r-^O"^  l-^rOMV£)  r>.<N  Ol>-^iO 
O"  d^'  r^X    e^^^  fO       \0   f^  •-'"  i-'  in  rO  cT  cT  ro  "^vo"  m" 


^■^c^      fooio—'oio-:*- 
"  cT  \D  ""^'  lo  -'  "'  -^  -^  in  a^  i-^     o  rox"  o'  -tec  x" 


r^  ^x  -^  <J^\D  in  o  Q  »n  m  -^d-x  r<i  a^\o  >>.'-'  lo  om-"  r^  » 
r--x  <n^  (N  o  oxx  lomOvo  r-^^o  in  oo  m  c*  c> -n  ov  f 
i>.0  ci\0  in-^in"-  n  -^i^w  t^  cox  r-      \d  m  tj-  ^  o^  ^  ^ 


)  o  O  o  O  a^ 


■  cT  en  -^  invD  rCco'  c^ 


CT\  o"  I-*"  rT  I    fo  Tt  in^o  r^oo  cr* 

^x'oO  X  (X    ^x'x  X  X  CO  CO  CO 


MISCELLANEO US  STA TISTICS. 


^ 

1 

f  Is1^i^k^s;Hs^IskS§ 

UUU^iUiUMt^ 

^^ 

1 

1  Sell's  %n^^M  %^Bi^siiHHU^^^^  r^r?? 

t 

1 

i 

:::::;::::.:  :<g^f^s- 

i^ss^- 

0 

i 

":■:■■:::::::::...  .^^H 

" 

s* 

1;= 
1" 

CT.-    c^  m"  t^.  ,-"  -    O^  0"vo' -.f  r.^.  t^           .     . 

1 

2 

5 
> 

kB^^^i^M^B  ^  1  iiB  ^i  §k^^BiBBMt  i 

1 

1 

MISCELLANEOUS  STA TLSTK'S. 


»)" 

€tiH"3?i2§^S2 

Pi 

H^slHsH^Hi 

<^<^^  ^t:  °'2'2  ^p'^"  !:"rtSr 

"i 

S^i^gJs^l^HIHS? 

a 

fsS^I'Ifl-ffls^ls 

O0-  O'  ^^  ^  t^  lOOO"  -"oo  S^  jj  <p  o" 

«Et 

al 


Omt^vO   cO  On  ^  OnX    a^00   CT>  CMOvX) 


?;  .8 


VD    f^i^ON  C 


- 1-;  pTvo  o  ; 


)  O  a>X    rOCO    ON  i- 


ONco  ONr--^  o  oo  vo  V 


iSc 


MISCELLANEO US  STA TISTICS. 


b~ 

?^.:T£-?;^'g^5  :^2  ^^^%^  &^  s^^  g^f.sSc2S  ^t^P.iSRS;^  ^s  ;; 

&iglS^tl5f|gg^i;^sr^§^i-H>°«sHf^S;|gSl^li 

H^5?p,i  8  Its^f  Hrs5l  Si;ai  l^"Hg^»  olftffHIl 

•*  t^  ^  IOU3  co«rKi-Cd'«  -a-"  1^  ro  lovo  rCt^CTi^a>^w  '"^j^r;  -^t^-ro'o  t>«  lo 

§ 

2  ^S  S;  S^=§v  3^=^  ^  2  :?g  5  K  S.S  ^i?  S;^  ?!  rr  8  ^  •!?>  £^  S>  S  ^  5  5  2^^5  5  S 

u 

Hg^f  S-?§=t§-SS^i^tS  ^Ht-;^HI^8  IH€^^|-§I 

11 

2  £^K-feSR|^  ^S  ilH'?^^^"^^^^  S-^I^H'^R^  S=K?$II 

s 

^ 

1 

1 

■.:::;  ■.:.:::::::::::::::  ^g^ ::  :8 ::::: : 

HS           o 

■:::::;:;::::::::;:::::  :^  : :  :^  : : : : : : 

«A 

in 

^5=   :iC%S5^ff^5R5^^J?<gS?.?g^^?^{5'RvS^S2;?^g> 

1 

3 

^'H  -i^lHH^Hs^s^^^&HI^Ex-HSUH 

■.::::-^":  ^IHsH^Hia^S^^E^H^^rs.^^! 

s 

*% 

:s;'?,58  53.^^?3^-Sgs:?>'5,^g^?^^c2S>^r:.^c;?^ 

f?^>S'R:"ig^s'^^oK^'4g^g'S;f2^ijsa«^vSf^5g>'5^ 

?i  3;^^  H'Sg  ^  R ;?  t:^  5S  » eg  ?.£-vS-2  SvS^'iS,  ^^  f^  g  Sv? 

a 

■■■■::::  '.ii^-s^^^^it^^'^  -^^s^i^i^^^^s^''^'^' 

::::::.:  ;«*                      ""^" 

i 

■^  ^S%S^'^^^^^S^)^^^???^^^'i  ^^  S-J^f=Sv?K5'^£:-ft^S 

O!    . 

•  iRf  Hi^sH?^?s;g2  "^H°^HH§tr^^i  ss  H&€ 

■f^l^^^lslti^^"'°"=^"="^"'-'^l:-^^if^"-^-"^^^^^ 

° 

•^                 "                         "'^'^" 

g^^^-s^  s^s^RSS^  R^t5%5  s>RK^?  ssg  ?8^;?:?3;?ri^s 

n 

•}  <ri-:t^  i/jvo  rC  rC»o  cS  o'  n  o"  |^  «  ^  io»o  rCco'  t^oo"  r^)  uS  t~-^>g  ^g  I^^'^TS'^Sc? 

s 

1 

„- 

K 

UuuuMMiiUMiMiMiiimim 

MISCELLANEOUS  STATISTICS. 


^^-^g^S^c^S  ^K2<8  ^S5  Sfrff^^^  S^  ^  as  R5S  ^2 

t^%^S^^^9> 

^l|-  =  IIUstl:Sig^^S^8R2l;o^&ii^S'3;sl^a^2Kl^5S; 

H^iHtRll  s°HI  s.S>a§;H:-r.s^HI  ^H^B?^3;f  ^ 

Sy-" 

s  #  ^  ^=s"  ^  j^  s  ;^  a  ^^' ?;  2=^' 2^=°' s^  s^  s^^-\^  ^  ?  S>  ?5  K^  SS  ^  S=^  ^  S,  2  9 

5^ 

^?KK^5>S-5  SSsK^^'S  KS^SvRS  :?3.5^:??:  t:  %^^^5i^  :??S=s>S;?,g 

N. 

a^^^'?i  j2^^  ^^^i^in  ?gf  ?§§^ii  r^i  n  r^^^uv^'^^ui 

11 

'.'s^:  ■  3^8=^8  Ss  :a : 

■  ■  •RSaS?^! 

1 

8  S  .  •  ^S'.S  vo  S>>S"  ■  S  ■ 

.   .   .  '?8^.t'9^ 

R;g     ^"^^^K^    ^ 

;; 

-     .  .=SS:§2-*  .      . 

■    •    ■o-"'^^^. 

<A, 

1 
3 

^fl^t%'$'Si$^'&^'&9,.s^^'^&%%^%'R^%%^^^^^&%T.^^^,^ 

H^^.Hs8  8?l=H^^BssS^^H°HI:fHEgKl'S^S 

l1^^^H^^II:Haf;sl§?IIUI^sHS?s;fSH?-^-H 

1 

•  *ft                ""                                         "              . 

a^g>So^s^^KR.?! ::::::::::::: : r^i 

g 

^-  CO  i/S  6  .D  ^  4  c^  ;;>-x-  t-      j^        "  g=c§. 

^ss'-aass-^s-g    K-        ■        S2^ 

5 

cioi-voo^-           -^      -     •                 .                      ^->|C 

■^t^ 

"    M 

1 

, 

2SSvg?=^8g^^8^?^?>!?^8^^q^8  8 ^^ 

f  ^?,^S5i52^^s^?'§SS^?2E^:;>^fift :  :  ■  ''k^ 

tl 

CR  t^  "T  <N^'   MN^OU^NNl-fO                  "<^;(N                                                                                                                               §.^ 

r 

M  «  «  «                                                                                                                                                        ^O^  r~ 

" 

?^^S^S^!i^^::'5;SS;^.«  ^S^3^SRc!?S^5  ^S^vS  ^'S7,S.'S^%S;^^  §■§! 

2 

€??^:^E:^|g2|a8^S||,9RHHlKlHf§^Hall^S"^lS> 

^ 

.^ir.-'i^-^jJ^ir^S^lt^Hia^K^lsssfssH^Hf??, 

ui 

t^UMMMPAiMMiitiUiiMMM 

iMISCELLANEOVS  tiTA TI.-iTWS 


a; 

?f^S.7?3>?^f.7 

^RSR^ 

^!?^'^':J=&^Sf,7rr,;Tf-.SC3 

£l3 

^_  -               -     -     _,^^^--      -      --,      _.-^-.^2^^ 

Isl 

b'7.                -                            .                                 .  JT-^% 

Isl 

V,  £^r.iob  n^'  ri  3-7  :<^  !/,,,..£  G'■'a^^-Tr.>^-r,>  c  osJ^^'o^^ 

h 

8J?^'S5S'?o;3f?s>^r..^.^g^?5-§^s>s^^^^2  4A??3;s;[?,8 

kD^«to:rvO^--0"-jiocNio-Ct^iootNio-^i     —  ---1     -^coco 

lOf^iO-Tf^J-lOOtNOONiJvot^vOiO^vOvOJ                                                     y'.O-;!- 

Is 

i 

jooMot^ro^  n  ^trJi^^^iS  !CS  "^  wPi^?;  ^n  "S  ^c??!-!  S"  "  « 

5>^'fi^:tfJ^SSV,^<.-<o%S% 

5^°?5^5^7^i^H'?^S2i^S     

i 

ro  fA  r--  fo  "^  lo  "N  ri   0  rC  cR  C>  lo  rC  in                   *     *     '          

£ 

B< 

■w.                                               

. 

^ff'R^^^S  2^%SE?SS  P;'§5  J^S^^o  $S^S'R:;,^%'S.S>8 

1 

^&iSl4lE:l^HSHH^?77?7-7-f|^ 

tin^^B3M^%^:%^mv: ':  :  '       im 

1 

WM^CjCNNPIMM-           «           „r,    —   1,.     .r    i-     _     -    ^      _     —   ,^,  n  -    ►, 

«, 

. 

S':::r^5^e^;^ 

^  . : 

<5?^vg^5K  iss-cS ::::::; 

'      tS 

^^?iS2^-^ 

1,.. 

-"^-R  Mt- 

= 

§S8Hs^.-p: 

.s . . 

"'it ^'4^""-  ■■'■■■ 

**                  ■           

S 

--5^^  §:£=n?8.%?£'S=5,S.:7>?^?>S^S^S.^  ?ftS«.  8 

1 

^^g||^?^HfStil^^^^^^^^^^^P-^|^^ 

^Ist^Hgi^sRH^I^                ::73S| 

« 

1 

g'S'o  5s"^:?S,:?o  £ -'^  2  ^-^T"' ^  ■--■     ""      -  ->---7o2^5 

^fOW""""" 

5%g3^£=5S'E5R^;?.S  S-8  R>g  S  ^S^^5^5^5^ft5?^R^  8 

« 

iMUm^n^?'^-^'''^^'--'^^m^ 

|^|^||%g.R7:  7.  :                                        -Iq^^ 

" 

"  ?H^  5°  s^-£  i^'i-  -  -  -  -  X  .i .,  r  -_  ^  ;, ..  .  .  .,  L-S  :r^ 

^t 

1 

\  MMiumt^mMiiiiiMilMM 

MISCELLAXEOVS  STA  TISTICS. 


ill 

1       Nr~.^;OQN'0^^^lN^-.o►--!)•>-c-l^0^lp■!^•W^O<MCOOM^^CO■:J-t--^,«0^ 

'    ll|fS?2-2|||i||^|fi^^||||.|R™K^R^ 

3;i^^^r--^:lri^iR8l^HI5B>KHB"§Sill5SH 

1 

s-'^^g-^gK8>^J^^^S?!^^f?ag^C55;S?s-^!;??^  ?>?:?:% 

1 

i^  X- :/ :'  " -- "  ?  ?  °  r- "  4  ?S  ^  1  ^^  ^  a  s  ^  1  g^  1  g  1  S|  ^ 

!!, 

c 

BSr.;f  .M  --  ^^ioS^^IH^Ssl^KS^^^^^ 

S 

^ 

4.r.r--...-:-,.--:^.,,,o^^^.^^^^^4^^^^^4 

'  1 

g 

"^ 

t 

■* 

-t^ 

^ 

s 

''^. 

i 

g :?«  s-s  ri&ss'Ks^sss^  s;s8  s-sf^i§  2  3^^^  :?9g<g=^s=§-x 

1 

1 

■s 

8i?^^S'^^8^2^S  8888888  8^88  8'SS  8^  ."  ?rS5S  5^^    i 

>i 

1 

■i 

§H^^^sl§,-§  §  §  8  8  8  Sfio^e^SsHR"  RS'sf. 

'? 

" 

^"""^?--S     "--^2^J8?SB5-?^^^^2:^^^^^^|^ 

< 

^ 

^ 
■i 

S^?^=g^^^?8cg-RR8  ?^cgcg  S  Sii'S^  !?g>?8  ^8«=§>^ 

>• 

HC-f?5  r.?f.3."  IHr^fHI  s^sr^l.^lfH 

vj 

z 

i^^^^■^^r  s^f  kIEs  ^Hg^  =  ll^§H^s  g 

1 

.t 

b-'g^?  S?:?c?^S>^E:^  S'^^^%3^^tS^2^^Sg  Scg  S2  S;;;>'R^^  | 

i^ 

S 

^i^^^iKmf^ni'^nr:^n^-^^^nUUi 

^ 

t!?li!fi!MP^^.::,:;;:;,^^;-:^;,;;;l=t 

g 

"■""■""■ 

s^ 

s 

^=s,o  ^^%.§  3;s  ?i  ^§-^?R5  ?i>s  R^^^5  R^t-^:^,:;3;s?g^ 

:§ 

|S 

&l5^l^n^5ts;^8K?H?=n::n^^s|5^sS^f 

^; 

s 

^^^^^^B§%H^^UH''^  -  -' i :.-.;  as^HU 

^"    """            .''.«-..-.  ^ 

i 
>• 

1- 

g^g:-rKii°Hi°i°iii5^„^^.^i.^^.^iiH 

MISCELLAl^EOUS  STA TISTJCS. 


r^ONW^    -^TtrOONt--'-    <N    "N    O  <N    O    t^'-i    CN    iOv5    O  \0    lO  r^.  r-.'O    C  ^C    i^  r-^,  -^  t^^O    I^  -    C    t-* 

-^  on^c  lo  I-"  d  co  r^oj  int-^  6  ^  -^co  06  o  d  vjd  co  co  d^  o^  (>  -rf  cn  01^  •^^*  x  r^  t-^  ro  i>-  d  -4 

^  10  ^    ON  -^  ■-    f-vO  CO    10  •"    10^  i-K--rt(N-rr(^^OONO    lO^O    lOTO^-    lOiOM    ONIN    -^rcmiO 

»-.    -^rOO    O    CN    lOO    rOr^-^ON"  CN    i-^Qn  O^X    r'-ju^'-    r^^'^uO-^Lr^O^r'-ONi-'    in  ^    in  ^   -rr  O^  l^ 

6   d  IN    cn\0    i-T  C^  -^VO    rO  ^  ^CC  Cn"  OsvO'   On^O    i-'  ^*   O^  I^.X'  -'  rC  rO  10  ^  ON 30    t^NO*  rT  I  ' 

rO  ON^D    iOOn^CNVO    >-•    ^    CN    i-hvO  -^f '^  On  r^^  ONvO    lo  lO  on  -    O    CN    r^^-O    lOX    t-^\D    ^   I^  ■ 

cO^O^    M^O    nX    lOt^^  lOX  CNXTf^    --    rOCN^OX^X    CS    ON-    O    rOO    ONr"- 


j^^^^^r::  8n^  K 


:  3"  S  1^>  o 

;  "4  -^  -^  10  lovo  vo  r^*J3  yD 


rOO   lOM    O    fOrO-^O    l^X  X  X    ONX    lO  »0  '-h    coX   r>.«COX    SPiOQ   -^ONONt^rDt^O   "^ 

ON  -^  ON  in\D  CN  ON  w  lox  ON  o  •     •  ^x  O  lOX  ON  -■  >-;  w  r^x  r^  q  t^x  r^v£j  on  ro  <n  no  i-^  on 

t^  r^  (N  •-*  d  <^  ^x  I-"  vo  CN  ro  .     .  vd  fOX*  r^ONfOCNx'  fo-^ioiofrjc  t^NvD  -y-w  in  in  6^  C 

10  10  -^  r^  O    -^  r^  Tl-\£J    ON  lO^O  ON  ro  ON  I^  -^X    10  to  CN    p-  «£)    rO  OnvD    ONfOCSyO    CNNO    UO'TCN 

iOr^iOOXXiOl^'Of^'-X  .      .    ONX   iDONiOUOTj-rJ-t^W   r^iOrnr^CNX    On-tJ-X   CN    OvO    - 
t^\0    lOvd"  X'  CN'pTrOCNfOMrC  rJ-ON^-^rO<^rOOCNO^OlOCMv 

■^\D  i^x  ON-ij-^-'r^r^oOio'    -p-iCTN  t^x  r^  c^  co  ^  -^  '^  on\D  X 

(jNcOON^OiOONr^t^c^iN  __  r-         --     ■—    "^  " • 


J  -^  ON  on  0  onq; 


c^  d^  o  tC  (N  I 


on  t^  CONO    t^  t-^  HH    rt  Q    O    O 
10  lOX  X   iOTt-rO'-<   '<^'^fO 


IVO   lOONi-i   f^M    m^   a^  ^\D   roX   Tt  r)   «  X    O    Q    rO  VOX    O   "-•   CN 
OON-^W   lO"-"    lOrO—    ON-"    lOvO   ^vO    O    CN   t'-CN    C    rnO   lO  r^  t^  rO 
'  x'  i>.  f^.^o'  r^NO  r^x"  ^'  10  ri  O^  O  x'  cn  w 
X   ONX   ONvO  X   r^iOONO   -   <NX^   fN   O 
r-.  O  X   -^X^^X^  *^jX^  fC^D  vD    (N    rO  l^  CN  X^ 

SO^^I^ON-H     -     [^     O 


mCC   '-'    ONVO   LO  vovJD 
-^  CN    I 


)  \0   >-    t-i  \0    ro  fOX    O   -^X   . 


a5cZ=§  ^S^?l5Sg^§8  S'^'SS  2S  8  35 ^^.g»  S^f;S-2  :S^S;£-=£  SS 

i 

il  iH^ii^HSis  ?:-5:b§^p;kS.^e:-^"  sHIsII"3  ss 

1 

|Eg^gfiii^p.f|||||S§fstf||f§ff|l§||||^ 

^'g  ^^5^5'&^15^^  S'KKS'cg^&SK^^S^'RS  S.!§^2  ES!,"^5^§.£' 

ET 

^IIHH^^^^I  s^HHf  lE^BsHgH.H^g^H^s;! 

g 

ifH5>i,.-HaHHH'^?8^Et§^^°Hi;ritffS;?.-?i^s 

X    M    rOX    10  O  X    »OX    M    fOX    CN  X    M  X    CN    CN    O    0N»5    CN    lOfOCN    M    UpH.    t-.   tJ-CO    O    lOOO  ^O    lO  t^ 

ON-^-<d-t^T4-Mx'  lOTtoN  dN>o  lod  TJ-ior^dco  hI  ro"-^  d  d  -^fo-^  lovo  c)d  ri  Tj-  d  d  "-•  d^  ^" 
o^onX  cmocn  wx  o  o  -^^w  ^"^"-^"^^  "^^^  •-:  ",  ^  °.  *^  "^  9.  ^  "?  '^  ">  °,  "_  ".  "t  ^  ", 
■4  ^  rf^  --a^CN^  -*^0  ONio  ^x  ON--  OnQ  "  Q-  ^-  ^x  »ox  nc  w  -  ri  ^^o  lo  r^  lo  t^ 
^vo  o^  o>  1-  t-.  r-.x  -^  t-.vo  t^  r^^  x  Ch  o,<^.^^  ^  '^^  *^  ^^,^.  ^^-  "1  ^  ^  '^^.  ^  ~  ^.  "  "^ 

cOrOrOfOTfTt-^-^  lO^'  uS  lO  i-'  ro  (N  x"  t^CC^D    pT  lO  lO  O'  lO  rC  rf  On  CN  X  O*  —  '4^  On  JO  J^nO 


)'-X  fOi^r^CN  O  O 


tH  ON  o\x  -^lo-^o  lorotocoN  t^\o  onvo  ^  ^  Q  vg  «  ^  ^  "?  ^^^  i2  S  ^  ^-^T  S^  i 
00  X  r^  10*0  vo  O  "-•  Tj-ONONu^t^w  r^x  on  -^vo  O  X  Onx  rocN  CN  m  <-  ^qNO  ^x  rs.  - 

O  ^  r^  ri  10  ^  -  ^  -^  ^  CN  On  r^  rCvo  on  onx  (n  h-  go  ^5  X  o  "^  ^^  o;  t^^  '^  $t  ST-  2}  t!  ^  5;r 
^  LO  M  V  O  CN  TtN^  w  CN  r-.NO  CN  rD\o  ON  rox  vor^-t^cNvox  c^*^'^'-'^0^'-_'^0_^-^OiocrN 

»OX^  o"  c-nvo"  cn"  tC  -rf  r^vO   ':fdNfOrOO''iOiOO*'OCN'io*-'*"'-    lOO    lO  fOX    ^(^CN    d^iOO   f^-t^ 

10^  o  ^  r-x  iovo  !-:  i--  o  CN  ON  ONvo  cNONONr-o  ^^  -x  lox  'g-x  O  v£_  ^-•  On  onvo  o  o^  p- 
M  r-.\o  t^^o  o  CN  o  10  r--  -d-  CN  cox  ^  r--ONTfi->.cN^  on  t^x^NO_x_^  o_x_  10  '^'^.  '-L  ^  ^  "^  ^  ^ 

r^CNCNCN^fOcorOrO'^vO'^'^iOO^t^lO  lO^o'*^   cO  lO  iOnO  no"  in  CN  vfT  r^  tC  t^\o  -^  •- X  *^  j;^  J> 


r^X   OnO   •-'   I 


MISCELLANEOUS  STAllSTICS. 


r^cc 


2  -^"  I  ^"^  lo  cS  CTM-  rooJ  --f  r^  r^vj5  \6  loco  co  tA  ri  -4  <n  t-^  m  v^  iom"  rJ  (n  «  h-'  rf  c^v  - 

<  JX  I  O  CO   \ri\0   —    r--  t^  O   rO  UOO)  X  vD    OvCO  X   "^  -^  0>  fOCO    CN    O  CO  sO    O^^    O  —    CN   lO  f 

'iii  (  ^  o^"^  ^^  -^  t^\r^^  -^  r^'^c/Sc/S  Ostein  r^  as  \fi  (:^  '^!:/S  t^  d 

(T^  I  ^ClfOO(N^^O^O^O^•^•i-lO^^Tt^    lOCO    lO  -^-O  CO    ■-'    On  <N    lOCO 


■^8 


*(*^^cy 


r>  ro  a\  rp  f 
loco  ov  r^^d  -^  fo^  t^  Kdo  o  CO  o  ctmn  ^  -^vo  i-i  w  (m  w  n 


COCO  \D  ^  fO  cr^  crv  t^co  q  a\  r^  -^  m  lo  m  loo  o  •-•  "h  t^N'^-<^(7v«'^(N  o  con  —^o  o 

lO-^O  M  CT>N  0^■^•^0^^  rOCO  •-  Ttr^^  r^^tr^x^O  rO  I-- iuo -i"  t^  O  CO  CO  cO«  0^  O^ 
'^_  "^  ^  "^  R.  *^  "?  9.  "  "^  "?^-^^°°>  "?  "  ^^-  OMOt^CN  ^  row--  lOO  4-  r^  -^  -  fO  -^  o 
-^Q"aNuSu5rCM"rt-^  lovo"  rC  d"  d>  ro  fo  -^  o"  t-^  rCco'  r^  dc/S\D  d  i-"  in  -'  cR  i-^x  --f  -'co 

rO  a^  CN  CO  0\\D  CO  M  OfOf^lOiO-'  C^Tt<N  O  "  lOO  t^^O  l--X:0  M-"  o  a^•^  W^D  ^  r-- 
O  -'  t-^^D  f^  O  t>;  -^^  "N  iOrrir^)-H  ON  ■-  iorOt--ioO  -  iorOiOl--r^O  O  "O  rO  w  CC  O^ 
•^  fO  ^  fO  r^  ro  ro  c5^  O  oi  lo  ^^  ^  ^^  ro  O'  r^  n"  in  in  w'  -^'  d^  ^  -h'  C*  rC  -rf  --'  -^^ 


•-  «  CO  Tj-  in  o  ^^  ON  in 
■-  inrnq  O^o  ^^r^c^ln 
Q*  y5  a>  —  d  »n  ^vo  <j\  ro 
Q  t--  -rf  inx  lo  o^^  -'  r-- 
ON^m-Hvoint-^cj  ONQ 
i-Cco*  rn  I-'  ^^o  voof  in  lo 

o"  i^  -"  in  c>m5  in  -T 


)  vO  ^o  (s  Oi  I---GO  a^  tt  <N  in  Tt^o  CNfoONr^-  t^O'a>  r^^o  o 
ON  in  i-  w  r^  -rf  ON 


CJ>0    rorO'-'    <J^  ^  \D    <-■    (N    -^(N'JS    ^^    in  fN    ON  (N    -t  a^  fO  (OCO 


-=a^5 


o)  CO  1-  in  i>-GO  o>  q_  ■ 

S  2"  §"?  .^^  ^=?  in  P:  ^ 


<->  rOt-^0M^'^r^*^0  •-'  "rtCC  QO  OC 
CO    r(-  rO  t^»0    C4    rOCO    N    rO  0^  «    O  "^ 

■rf  ch  o  ovfor^in'^D  ONCTiONr^r--'^'' 
in  rC  n  O^  on  in  cm'  o"  cn"  rCvo  •-  i-T  (n~ 
\o  ts  OM  incTNrfO  -^o  Mvo  inONC 

CO   cO'-'vO    O   <N^   '-'    OtttTO    On\0 

rTft  fOprioro^^tCrot^r-^  t^^*  c 


X    O  C3^  O   •d-'O  rO  r^  O  r^co   t^  —   r-*  r*  ( 
O    O    q    ^  ro  W  ^O    I--  vx>  00    r^^O    O  VO    01    I 

gv  r^  I-*  !>.  d  d>  -^co  oj  r^  t-^\D  ctmA  S.  ■ 

O  in^  •rf  a^  o\  <j\  m  r^  o  O  •^'O  r-^  -rfo 


^O^-rc:^0    04    lO^ONcO 
\  C^^O  'O  'O' 'O 'O  vO  \o" CO*  —*  CO  d^  CJ^ 


Pj   0\>-i  Tfr-^O  -^01  r^r^M   O^CT\c 

tnocot^O  qqt^  c^co  cj  o\  r^  - 
\£)  ro  in  <o  "^  CS  ■-""  04  !>.  ctn  r^  d^^  t 

in  in  ro^D  cO'.D  -H  O  inoj  o)  o  mcoo  o  coO  (nco  r^-^roO 
CO    CN    in'O    CO  CN  CO  ►-    o  ^    O    -^SD 

cf\\c  oj  r^  ro  ON  in  ^n^^c 

)TOJ    CO  Ov^    inv£J    OJ    fOGQ 


fO  01  cr\  ^"^^  q^  10  1 
!  d"  '-"''  -^  tC  in  ^f  10  1 
x^vT}   O   "-I  CO   CO  r-.  f 


coco  i^^o  <N  -^_  4^JD  ^c»\o  cow^tn^rCg 
■  ^d  -rf  -■  u5  t^  "'  cr\  t^^  r^  <y\\6  vd  od  4  tovd 

-  CO'    r>  ^  CO  0    t>X    CI    ro  O    O    O  coco    ON  ON 


^^VCC 


r^d"  oi  d"  -'co' 


O  MD  >0  \0   rtX    rg    ro  01    CT>vO    ONCO   t^  01    m  «    ON  cO -^  t^CO    ^  CO    O    O    <0 -^CO    b  t 

"CO  d  ^  >nx  d  »n  ■;£  t^x  r^  inco  uS  t<.  Q  mo  d  -^  oj  coco  oi  in\d  d  cd  invD  ro  (>  On  '    '" 

<-■  Tfo  r^i—  -i-CTNt^ONinrooj  -^co  ^o  rfo  '-'  \o  onco  o  r^  in  o)  co  r^  mvo  m  r^  04  m  o 

i  -^  o  ■^^^o  -i-y:^  on^o  on  —  —  a^^o  co  r^  ■-  'o  on  -^  -rj-  rovo  in'-'0'^o*coo^r^ONr~-.  § 

)  -Tf  —  o  "^  Tt^  '-'  inoNoi  cocoo  Oo»'^  invD  ^"  d"  '-'  on  o  "^  '-'  ot  in  n'  d~  lo  •-'"  rC  "^  d" 

.N-  oNONioo)  -^o  inON:--oi  «  CN  t-^co  ioof^-.>^r-,-  ojr^w^ooi  coco  in  on  -^^o  O  S 

^  '^^^  *"-  ^^  "  "?^  '";  "^  '^  "^  '^_  9.  9.  ■"_  "^  '"'  ^  "^  ON  ^\o  CO  in  in  -^f  m  t>.x  ^o  inx  - 

i  ro  d  d"  CO  in  coco'  rC  in  in^d"  oT  hToo  rC  cT  d^co'  d  coco'  c>  oT  -^co'co'  -^  ^^f  go  \d"  on  -tF  i-T  ^ 

O   CT^  t?CO    ON01t^in(OrO'rrTj-'^cOrOrO-^co-*-<d-"*^'^cOcOfO'^'^'*'<T-^inin  1      '^ 


I  ^  CO    -  c 


0>  ON  !>.  r;r»  O  t^  C<  t^  rOVO  rn  a  \Q  MCO  -rJ-O  1-^  ONVO  M  00  w  O  I 
vo  in  cox  I-"  -H  r^vo  »ninoi  Tfo»0  OnO'-o  inT}-r-.r^OM  t~>. 

IVO   rO'^cor^'-'   '-''dt^d   fOoJ   Mvd   rOlnCj^'^f-d   OJ   rO( 
*   "*"   "    —    OvOvD   ■-   lO--"    OnO^'O    O    ino<    fs    inoi    ro 

3  O  "^  ON  t^  <-<  in  t^^o  o  r^ininrot^o  "^ 
!■>■  inco  oi  ONrodoN-^rCi-r  ^z^  i-T  d'  cf^  oT  t-^  — "  co^"  d^:/""  d 

Sl^  '^  ^^  t^  ^  2  i^  ^^  ^  ^  ^t^OMnt^-r-  "  .-  t^oj 

ro  CO  -_  in  CTsxO  -^O  ^04  '^ONrO'-'   o  mo)   --  t-^^--'-^o^^O   o^ 

IT?  ^  1?  tr  £1  2. '"'  *^^'  ro  d  q'  fO  in  '-r  covo"  fo  in  -^  4  rCx"  d^  f^  -^ 

WW  w  w  ■^■^loinio  lovo  vo  r-x  t--.  t^  m  in"*o  mvo  in'O  t>.co  t^ 


a^X  X    ON 


3XXXXXCO   OnOnCnOnonOn 


:HIHCELLANEOVS  STATISTIC: 


Table   No.   36. 

Tadie  Shozving  the  Value  of  Principal  Articles  and  Classes  of  Merchandise  Importea 

into  the  United  States,  for  the  Years  iSpo,  1892,  1894  <^'>id  189J, 

Ending  funejo. 

Compiled  from  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  Treasury  Department. 

[Abbreviation,  ii.  e.  s.:  not  elsewhere  specified.] 


Free  of  Duty. 

Animals,  n.  e.  s 

Articles,  the  gro%vth,  etc.,  of  United  States,  returned, 
Art  works,  the  production  of  American  artists,    .    .    . 

Chemicals,  drugs  and  dyes,  n.  e.  s 

Coffee '. 

Cork  wood  or  cork  bark,  uninaiuifactured,     

Cotton,  unmanufactured 

Farinaceous  substances,  n.  e.  ^. 

Fertilizer.s,     , 

Furs  and  fur  skins,  undressed 

Hair,  n.  e.  s 

Hats,  bonnets  and  hoods,  materials  for,  etc.,  n.  e.  s.. 

Hides  and  skins,  other  than  fur  skins, 

Household  and  personal  eifects,  etc 

India  rubber  and  gutta  percha,  crude, 

Mattings  for  floors,  etc 

Oils,  n.  e.  s 

Ores,  silver-bearing, 

Paper  stock,  crude 

Silk,  unmanufactured, 

^S'"r 'an d°nTo"aies  n'  e   s 

Tea '....'. 

Textiles,  grasses  or  fibrous  vegetable  substances,  u  e 
Tin,  bars,  blocks  or  pigs,  grain  or  granulated,  ,  .  .  . 
Wood,  unmanufactured,  n.  e.  s 

Wools,  hair  of  the  camel,   goat,   alpaca  and  other 
animals,  and  manufactures  of : 
Unmanufactured — 

Clothing  wools  (Class  i),    .  .       

Combing  wools  (Class  2) 

Carpet  and  other  similar  wools  (Class  3i,     .   . 
Rags,  noils  and  wastes 

Total  unmanufactured 

All  other  free  acticles, 

Total  free  of  duty 


78,267,4.-}2 
1,213,876 
1,392,728 
1,108,726 
1,213,989 
6,867,670 
2,165,213 


7,748,572 
5,261,44s 
24.325.531 
2,973.994 
■11.559. 142 
12,317.493 
697,680 
6,898,909 
4,242,085 


31.528,331 
3.221,041 
126,801,607 
1.368,244 
3.217.521 
257.739 
1.431.285 
9,649,578 
3.352,429 
1,685.562 
1,897,190 

26,658  133 
2.921.893 

19.833.090 
893.139 
1.637.473 
3,329,244 
9,606,065 
5,448.263 

25.059.325 

2,740,087 

<f  106,720,226 

14,373.222 

e  16,478,122 

8.667,870 

5.569.991 


$1,090,867 
3.454.450 

1.875.286 
27,433.907 

2,402,382 
87,173,108 


220,462 

1,139,294 

8,891,942 

2,461,205 

839.972 

2,017,678 

15,838,888 

2.775.982 

15,162.333 

374.685 

■  1,874.977 

2.250.825 

6.679.161 

•3,048,094 

16,234,182 

2,004,708 

126,619,835 

14,144,243 

10,586,71s 


>,472 


i  I        25,440,522 

12,823,269  23,043,056 

$379,795,536      $363,233,795 


a  See  "  Hats,  etc.,  dutiable." 

b  Included  in  "  AU  other  dutiable  articles." 

c  Free  of  duty  under  reciprocity  treaty  with  Hawaiia 

d  Includes  all  brown  sugar  and  molasses  after  April  1 

e  Includes  flax  and  hemp  only,  after  October  5,  1S90. 

/  Dutiable  after  July  1,  1893. 

g  See  "  Hats,  etc.,"  free  of  dutj'. 

/;  After  October  6,  1S90,  free  of  duty. 

.«'  Dutiable. 


MISCELLANEOUS  STA TISTICS. 


Table  No.   36. — Continued. 


Articles. 

1890. 

1892. 

1894. 

1895. 

Dutiable. 

$3,270,277 

1,796,372 
2,878,7.7 

5,629,849 
404,423 

1,285,219 

2,172,952 

14,787,688 

2,114,284 

3,087,760- 

$2,575,8.3 

2,030,599 
2.115,417 

1,592.040 
3,039.408 

1,455,058 

3.855,572 

14,433,308 

1,930,538 

4,373,079 

$.,3.0,379 

.,484,184 
l,S84,.82 

929,23. 
3,265,087 
10,119,263 

3, 704,.  13 

$2,017,171 

Art  works,  n.  e.  s. :   Painting  in  oil  or  water  colors,  and 

187,250 

Books,  and  other.printed  matter,  n.  e.  s., 

Breadstuffs- 

Barley 

Another 

1,580,827 

'867,743 
1.676.809 

Chemicals,  drugs,  dyes  and  medicines,  n.e.s., 

13,241  S82 

Coal,  bituminous 

3,848.365 

Cotton,  manufactures  of: 
■       °  Not  bleached,  dyed,  colored,  stained,  painted  or 

$129,588 

3,373,653 

336,655 

7,149.030 

11,447,670 
904, '35 
6,577,324 

$140,001 
4,505,666 
1,261,848 

5,833.652 

11.248,289 
664.952 
4,669.433 

$95,565 
3,385,24. 
.,658.778 

4,360,655 

8,021,769 

4,4« 

Bleached,    dyed,     colored,     stained,     painted     or 

5,428,243 

Clothmg,  ready  made,  and  other  wearing  apparel,  not 

2,766  877 

Knit  goodf:  stockings,  liose,  half  hose,  shirts,  drawers, 
and  all  goods  made,  fashioned  or  shaped  on  knitting 
m.ichines  or  frames,  or  knit  by  hand,    .       ...,■■ 

Laces.edgings.  embroideries,  insertings.neck  rufflings, 
ruchings,  trimmings,  tuckings,  lace  window  curtains. 

6,535.179 

11,686.016 

Thread  mot  on  spools),  yarns,  warp  or  warp  yarn,     .   . 
All  other 

658,702 
5.995.792 

$29,918,055 

$28,323.84. 

$22,346,547 

$33,196,625 

Earthen,  stone  and  china  ware  : 

China,  porcelain,   parian  and  bisque,   earthen,   stone 
and  crockery  ware- 

1' ,217,326 
4,808,206 
1,004,769 

$1,894,577 

%^^;5°3 

$1,258,881 

$2,053,723 

6;585;76. 

All  other 

$7,030,301 

$8,708,598 

$6,879,437 

Fancy  articles- 
Perfumeries,  cosmetics,  and  all  other  toilet  prepara- 

2,070,659 
477,183 
1,448,602 
1,190,690 
278.973 
819.596 

$^64,855 

2,476,132 

904,659 
1,833,354 
418,..2. 

$427,850 

2,149,660 

726  692 
1,727,996 
3^4.578 

Beads  (except  amber)  and  bead  ornaments 

i 

Fans  except  palm'  leaf                                  " 

b 

Feathers,  ornamental,  natural 

Feathers  and  flowers,  artificial 

Pipes  of  all  kinds  and  smokers' articles 

All  other 

4.5.206 
1,74. .261 

Total 

$7,626,378 

$6,097,221 

$5,346,776 

$3.. 72.7.0 

$3,710,382 

$4,585,450 

$4,643,746 

""$4^66^ 

Flax,  hemp,  jute,  etc.— 

Unmanufactured,/, 

19.844,087 

2,645,972 

1,576,763 

1,178.334 

Manufactures  of— 

$1,300,795 

6.433,771 

86,259 

1-521,043 

19,079,411 

$1,4.2,399 
7,064,335 

17,075,067 

26.726 

469.207 

12,735.607 

115^29 
19,901 
5.2,148 

Burlaps  (except  for  bagging  for  cotton), 

Cables,  cordage  and  twine, 

Another 

18.425.527 

$28,421,279 

$26,293,2.7 

$19,230,021 

$20,165,426 

• 

$.3,878.80. 

j      $11,294,328 

$9,862,829 

$11,772,040 

BIISCELLANEOUS  ST  A  TISTICS. 


Table  No.  36 — Coiitinucd. 


— 

.390. 

1S92. 

1894- 

.». 

$5,388,603 

$6,844,702 

$4,979,079 

$7,002,. 04 

Glass  and  glassware- 
Bottles,  vials,  demijohns,  carboys  and  jars,  emptj-  or 

$912,704 
l,46.,736 

74,546 
1,529.401 

S4,7<5 

931.323 

249,819 

2.,c8.269 

i,» 

56, 162 

887,626 

119,201 

3,485.103 

$506,183 
1,067,787 

22,314 
786,004 

38,12. 

449.086 

75.106 

2,272,2.5 

Cvlinder,ciown  and  common  window  glass,unpolished. 
Cylinder  and  crown  glass,  polished- 

Uusilvered, 

835,730 

Silvered, 

Plate  glass- 

6s1;?^ 

16:740 

3,605,194 

Total,                                                     

$7,352,513 

$8,758,964 

$5,2.6,8.6 

$6,541,679 

Hats,  bonnets  and  hoods,  and  materials  for,  n.e.  s 

Hay, 

$3,398,657 
1.143,445 
..053,616 

g 

$715,151 
883.70. 

S 

$761,940 
484.415 

e 

Iron  and  steel,  and  manufactures  of- 

613,170 
573,335 

1,496,397 

511,487 

20,928,150 

2.390,813 

793,454 

.60,412 

97,570 

2,532,437 

1,665.895 

i!8i2!675 

IS 

i;666,=i4 

840,521 

12,315,562 

i,76.,776 
552,624 

'6°:^ 

1,207,020 
81,554 
647,751 

2,962,932 

$388,720 
585.988 

45,967 
421,997 

42,325 

i4;°ii 
820,541 

,  47,805 
25,120 

.22,710 
1,419.512 

1,494,164 

$-170  6S2 

Piciron,     

Scrap  iron  and  steel,  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured,  .   . 
Bar  iron   rolled  or  hammered 

i8l:y 

502',346 
11.237 

Bars,  raiivvav,  of  iron  or  steel,  or  in  part  of  steel,    .   .   . 

Hoops  or  ties  for  baling  purposes,  barrel  hoops,  and 

hoop  or  band  iron  or  steel,  flared,  splayed  or  punched. 

Ingots,  blooms,  slabs,  billets  and  bars  of  steel,  and 

Sheet,  plate  and  taggers  iron  or  steel, 

I,. 14. 136 

Wire  and  wire  rope  and  strand  iron  or  steel, 

Manufactures  of,  n.  e.  s  — 
Anvils, 

665,451 

Chains 

isS 

Files,  file  blanks,  rasps  and  floats 

65.594 
458.522 

'h 

Another 

1,637.231 

$41,679,501 

$■3,541,586 
657,658 

$28,420,747 

$20,594,366 

, 

Jewelry,  manufactures  of  gold  and  silver,   and  precious 

«12.972,938 

3,653,378 

$5,342,809 
6,606,865 

$7,511,898 

2,488,584 

Leather,  and  manufactures  of: 
Leather— 

$17,613 
3,644:6^5 
1,372,257 

$24,101 
1,199.954 
3.497.879 

2,090,673 

2,484,740 
1,622,335 

$256,505 
527.427 

Calfskins,tanned,  or  tanned,  dressed  and  japanned, 

Upper  leather,   dressed,  and    skins   dressed  and 
finished,  n.  e  s 

2,35..156 

Total  leather,          .   .                    

$6,2=9,836 

«5,501.336 
704.908 

$6,8.2,607 

$4,508,330 

$6,863,343 

Manufactures  of— 

Gloves,  of  kid  or  other  leather,      

Another 

$5,830,380 
657,334 

$4,412,597 
495.218 

$6,463,872 
491.823 

$6,206,244 

$6,487,714 

$4,907,8.5 

$6,955,695 

Malt  liquors, 

$1,427,608 
1,297,637 

$1,709,960 
1,385.810 

$1,510,767 
1,288,996 

$1,514,845 

Marble  and  stone,  and  manufactures  of, 

1,239.166 

M ISC  ELL  A  NEO  US  ST  A  TISTIC8. 


Table   No.   36 — Conlinued. 


Metal,  metal  compositio 
Musical  instruments.  . 

Paints  and  colors,  .  .  . 
Paper,  and  manufacture 
Provisions,  comprising  i 
Rice 


lud  dairy  products, 


$4,234,082 
1.703. 129 
1.531.739  , 
1,343.457 
2,816,860 
2,011,314 
2,042,120 
950.925 
3.530.631 


t.031,485 
[,664,72. 
1,372.052 
(.342.304 
[,796,096 
!,663,350 
713.901 
779.793 


$4,486,395 
619,466 
1.699.516 

2,628,351 
I.797,S47 
2.017,505 


$4,228,046 
918,253 


[,178,207 
2.863,533 


Clothing,  ready  mac 
Dress  and  piece  goo 
Laces  and  embroide 

Ribbons 

All  other 

Total.    . 


1  other  wearing  apparel. 


(.391.257 
[,644,769 
!,892,830 


^1,496,699 
9.695.863 
2,320,224 
1,063,116 

■0.235.871 

$24,811,773 


1,813.697 
9.774.920 
3.946,270 


Spirits,  distilled . 

Sugar  and  confectionery, 

Tin,  bars,  blocks,  pigs,  grain  or  granulated, 

Tobacco — 

Leaf,     ■.   . 

Manufactures  of, .- 


Wood. 
Wools, 


aud  manufactures  of. 

mel,  goat,  alpaca    and   other  like 


nimals,  and  manufactures  of 
Unmanufactured - 

Clothing  wools  (Class  I ), 

Combing  wools  (Class  2) 

Carpet  and  other  similar  wools  (Class  3) 

Total  unmanufactured, 

Manufactures  of— 

Wool,  carbonized, 

Carpets  and  carpeting 

Clothing,  ready  made,  and  other  wearing  appa: 

except  shawls  and  knit  goods. 

Cloths 

Dress  goods,  women's  and  children's, 

Knit  fabrics 

Rags,  mungo,  flocks,  noils,  shoddy  and  wastes. 
Shawls 


$2,214,200 
89,734.684 


4.455.374 
8.859.956 
12,999,831 


$3,894,760 
1.905.970 
9.463.353 


$1,871,110 
c  664,072 


1.476.132 
[,883,227 


$9,523,773 
1,368,654 

8,795,681 


$1,285,657 

1.477.452 
12,765,044 
16,474,601 
1,162,853 
87.825 
353.305 


$1,499,604 
2,279.047 
2.640,770 

"'.?54;?i6 

2,149,660 
3.895.067 
6,739.478 


$1,748,359 

399,875 

3,959.204 


858,827 

6,756,321 

8,580,962 

1,005,899 

47.522 

157.352 

357.414 


!,o6o,449 


:,889,628 
1.971.536 
'.183.537 
U2i6,359 


,  999.492 
16,298,169 
14. 399.^44 


All  other  dutiable.    .  . 
Total  dutiable. 


2,076,182 
9,402,804 


$14,481,681 
368,736,170 


^^ 


ilIISCELLAKEOrS  STA  TTSTICS. 


Table  No.  37. 

Tad/c  Showing  the  Value  of  Principal  Articles  and  Classes  of  Mercliandisc  Exported 

front  tlie  United  States,  for  tJie  Yea)-s  i8go,  iSg2,  i8g^  and  iSp^, 

Eliding  fune  jo. 

Compiled  from  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics   Treasury  Department. 


MISCELLANEOUS  ST  A  TISTICS. 


TabIvE  No.  37 — Contiyiued. 


Articles. 

1890. 

1892. 

1S94. 

1895. 

Glass  and  glass  ware- 
Window  glass 

Another 

$    8,910 

873,767 

932!o64 

$  19,3" 
902,761 

$  11,140 
935.241 

$882,677 

1,110,571 
1,090,307 
1,429.735 

$942,302 

$922,072 

$946,381 

1,223,895 
2,420,502 
1,416,067 

3,972,494 
3.844,232 
1,461,842 
1,534,277 

$904,071 
699,029 
2,310,323 
1,872.597 
1,505,142 
1,912.771 

Hav 

Hides  and  skins,  other  than  furs 

Hops                   

Inciia  rubber  and  gutta  perclia,  manufactures  of, 

Instruments  and  apparatus  for  scientific  purposes,    .... 

Iron  and  steel,  and  manufactures  of— 

277io66 

6,411 

143.221 

$  300,832 
620 

^??:i8l 

8;g:??^ 

311,250 

160,510 

39,032 
15.949 
317,336 

31.023 

i,i6ii1 
318,749 
2,793.780 

:,2^:^l 

305,47s 
570,915 

'&. 

3,194.825 

$      289,915 

&^^ 
103,228 
789,146 

2,309,688 
10,229,293 

273,191 

.60,239 

16,641 

8,048 

409,220 

S,oo7 

259,531 

1,900,444 

.325.417 

3,133,992 

.  «.38o 

"'ii 
230,041 

$      370,243 

7,302 

133,783 

94.454 

491,928 

6^^;??i 

2.5o|$ 
10,438.069 

330,118 

180,607 

112,115 
39.597 
272,514 

26,987 

l,9l8;^8 

315,290 

2,347,354 

1,028:336 
313.346 
710,219 
236,433 

4,988,483 

Castings,  not  elsewhere  specified 

Cutlery, 

11,493.093 
283,646 
210,192 

52.Q-,6 

Locks,  hinges,  and  other  builders'  hardware.    .   . 

Nails  and  spikes- 

Wire,  wrought,  horseshoe,  and  all  other,  including 

Plates  and  sheets— 

Of  iron               

Of  steel                                       

i6;?^36 

159,627 
43,096 

Railroad  bars  or'rails- 

Of  steel             

292,918 
2,260,139 

9,010 

'^^s^^''^''''-: . . . . 

ISi^niii  parts  of  engines,"  ;:;.::.:..: 

248,199 

stoves  and  ranges,  and  parts  ot.    ■;;;;•;;;;;; 

5,706,668 

$25,542,208 

$662,759 
184,317 

$28,800,930 

529,220,264 

$30,000,989 

$1,026,188 
166,07s 

*85i,o84 
638,636 

777,354 
198,047 
529,083 

$716,844 
215,727 

'2261^79 

6,420,134 

279,028 

662,974 

36i!770 

$3,880,475 
249,239 

5,783,555 
605,094 

914,974 
251.269 
400,175 

''iU%l 

'■llliU 

''"Btt?'andst"es 

1,010,228 
196,018 
767,60s 

Au'otvfer^"    saddles 

Total 

$12,438,847 

1.2,084,781 

$14,283,429 

J1S6I4  407 

1i1;^?^ 

$657,934 
707,536 

$  548,979 
1,0.54.814 

885:179 

141,182 

$772,582 

254,490 

piS;^rtes; :::::::;::::::::::::::: 

llf^ 

$r,io5,i34 

$1,164,656 

$972,590 

MISCELLANEOUS  ST  A  TISTICS. 


Table  No.  37 — Contimtcd. 


Articles. 

1890. 

1892. 

■894. 

1895- 

Naval  stores,  rosin,  tar,  turpentine,  pitch,  and  spirits  of 

$7,444,446 
7,999,926 

1,686,643 

44!65S',SS4 
5,672,441 
578,103 

$7,989,933 
9.713.204 

978,688 

5,101,840 

39.704,152 

5.334.955 

709,857 

740,223 
37!o83!89l 

$7,419,773 
4.310,128 

578,44s 

5,  ■61.710 
4  ■,498,372 

°"Vninra,           .              . 

Mineral- 

Refined  or  manufactured 

Vegetable              .   .                     

Paper,  and  manufactures  of— 

$99,501 

125.041 

1,002,144 

99i870 
1,221,021 

$108,400 

$109,203 

All  othf  r,  !^ ^ :...... .::::::: 

1,963,284 

Total 

$1,226,686 

$1,382,251 

$■.906,634 

< 

$2,408,709 

$3,965,263 

$3,820,656 

$3,569,614 

Provisions,  comprising  meat  and  dairy  products- 

$123,182,650 
.3.081,856 

^'^0^8^! 

"'l-X:^ 

tZ'lht 

Total 

$136,264,506 

$140,362,159 

$145,270,643 

$126,527,361 

$20,728 

2,6^7:811 
54,449 
1,109,017 
1,633,110 
3,029,413 

6,2"52,282 
■    152,150 
1,063,207 
2,401,117 
■.935.984 

$19,884 
52.071 

'%% 

2,209,411 

$4,687 

'i'i-^r. 

Soap,     

Spirits,  distilled, 

1,092,126 

2,99.,686 

Tobacco,  and  manufactures  of : 
Unmanufactured- 
Leaf                           

2,947.525 

^"1^:8^^ 
2,967.409 

5',263 
1,094,340 
2,704,393 

$25,622,776 

176,192 

Manufactures  of— 

2',73o:266 

$25,355,601 

$24,739,425 

$23,849,996 

Ve..etables 

$1,357,095 

27o',930 

28,274.529 

33,543 

$■,898,145 
2.57,885 
439.030 

25.790,57- 

30,664 

$■,744,462 
99,042 

27,7";'69 

90,676 

$1,543,458 

27."5,907 
484,463 

Wool,  and  manufactures  of— 

Wool   raw                    .                  

$6,702 
40,957 
317.910 
71,910 

$9,378 

268;985 
64  93^ 

$250,006 
38,756 
317,295 
J68,523 

Flannels  and  blankets 

49:822 

Wearine  aonarel                      

316,154 

Allothe';i??nufacturesof,    .............   \  '. 

Total  manufactures,     

$437,479 

$367,737 

$774,580 

$670,226 

$■3,397,213 

$■4,735,754 

$20,547,320 

$845,293,828 
■  2,534,856 

$857,828,684 
52,148,420 

$^,o^5.732.oi^ 
■4.546  137 

$869,204,937 
22,935,635 

$793,392,599 

31,571,593 

fl  ,030,278,148 
§3,005,886 

$892,140,572 
■  27,429,326 

Total  value  of  exports  of  gold  and  silver, 

.■3,35S.500 

INDEX. 


Abraham,  William,  miuority  report  of  Brit- 
ish Labor  Commission,  1S94,  3S3. 

Adams,  John,  on  wisdom  of  protection,  574. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  in  campaign  of  1828, 
687. 

Ad  valorem  duties,  disadvantage  of,  410; 
encouragement  to  under  -  valuations  and 
fraud,  687. 

Agricultural  machinery,  manufacture  in 
German)',  431;  increased  use  of,  in  United 
States,  659;  manufacture  of,  in  United  States 
i860  and  1890,  704, 

Agriculture,  a  chief  branch  of  production,  i, 
2;  in  palmy  days  of  Rome,  15;  protected 
under  Queen  Elizabeth,  65;  prosperous  con- 
dition of  in  England  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, 91;  growth  in  England,  103;  inferior- 
ity'to  manufacturing  as  an  industry,  211; 
evil  effect  of  repealing  the  Corn  Laws  pre- 
dicted by  the  peers,  278;  decline  in  England 
under  free  trade,  278-88;  flourishing  under 
protection,  279;  statistics  of  products  grown 
in  England  and  imported,  2S0-82;  decrease 
in  the  number  of  persons  engaged  in  agri- 
culture under  free  trade,  282;  its  ruin  de- 
stroys the  foundation  of  other  industries, 
2S8;  destruction  of  the  yeomanry  class  by 
free  trade,  289;  neglect  a  serious  economic 
blunder,  289;  capacity  of  England  sufficient 
for  the  home  demand,  290;  made  unprofit- 
able in  Ireland,  373;  statistics  of  products 
imported  by  Great  Britain,  3S6;  injured  in 
Germany  by  free  trade,  424;  fostered  by  the 
protective  policy,  426;  statistics  in  Ger- 
many, 427,429;  the  chief  concern  of  the  Phy- 
siocrats, 499;  improvement  under  protection 
in  France,  510;  statistics  in  France,  525;  sta- 
tistics in  Italy,  540;  condition  in  the  United 
States  in  1S35  to  1S43,  and  in  1847,  597;  in 
1840,  1850  and  1S60,  610;  benefited  by  the 
McKinley  act,  652;  growth  from  iSsoto  1890, 
657-71;  increase  of  labor-saving  implements 
in  the  United  States,  659;  need  of  protection, 
662;  nearness  of  market  important, 664;  West- 
ern farm  mortgages,  665-70;  decline  in  prices 
of  products,  711;  increase  in  purchasing  pow- 
er, 712;  imports  and  exports  of  United  States 
under  Gorman-Wilson  tariff,  748;  little  mar- 
ket for  United  States  to  gain  in  foreign  coun- 
tries, 75S;  imports  of  England  in  1S94,  760. 

Alison,  Archibald,  on  the  progress  of  Eng- 
land under  protection,  124;  on  England's 
prosperity  after  Napoleonic  wars,  131;  statis- 
tics of  debt  and  revenue  of  England,  150. 

AlThusen,  Charles,  on  recijirocity,  240;  on 
decline  of  English  chemical  industry,  275. 

American  Economist,  on  wages  under  the 
Gorman- Wilson  tariff,  749. 

American  System,  rise  and  rapid  growth, 
577;  vigorously  advocated,  583. 


Ames,  Fisher,  on  protection  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  569. 

Andrew,  Samuel,  evidence  on  foreign  com- 
petition with  English  cotton  industry,  237; 
on  necessity  of  reducing  wages,  237;  on  agree- 
ments of  British  Cotton  Manufacturers,  238. 

Anglo-Saxon  invasion  of  England,  institu- 
tions and  form  of  government,  36. 

Anti-Corn  Law  League,  on  the  opportune 
time  for  free  trade  in  England,  157;  rise  and 
activity,  159;  petitions  parliament,  161;  ac- 
tivit}-  in  the  election  of  1841,  162;  opposes 
Peel's  revision  of  the  Corn  Xaws,  163;  decep- 
tive arguments  to  farmers,  171,172,173;  meets 
obstacles  in  good  harvests,  173;  triumphs  by 
the  aid  of  bad  harvests,  174;  suspected  of  im- 
proper use  of  money,  175;  magnitude  of  its 
funds,  176;  real  purpose  of  its  agitation,  199. 

Antwerp,  commercial  centre  of  the  West,  26. 

Apprentices,  statute  of,  60. 

Arabs,  ancient  commerce,  9. 

Artificial  Industries,  free  trade  fallacy  of, 
exposed,  802-04. 

Artificial  Selection,  law  of,  basis  of  the 
doctrine  of  protection,  790,  791;  progress  of 
mankind  due  to,  792. 

Asia,  statistics  of  trade  with,  551. 

Atkinson,  Edward,  on  wages  in  the  United 
States  in  1892,  652;  on  farm  mortgages  in  the 
United  States,  668-70;  on  the  rise  of  wages 
in  the  United  States  from  i860  to  1890,  717; 
on  labor  cost  in  cotton  goods,  769. 

Austin,  Michel,  minority  report  of  British 
Labor  Commission,  1894,  3S3. 

Australasia,  statistics  of  trade  with,  552. 

Austria-Hungary,  growth  of  foreign  trade 
1 854- 1 890,  312;  economic  policy,  533;  tariff 
of  1882,  533;  manufactures  and  agricultural 
products,  534;  statistics  of  exports,  535; 
statistics  of  wages  in  1S90,  719. 

Babylonians,  ancient  commerce,  9. 

Bacon,  Lord,  introduced  protection  in 
land,  330. 

Bagehot,  Walter,  on  "economic man. 

Balance  of  trade,  in  favor  of  England  1697 
to  1793,  94;  1793  to  1859,  119;  adverse  for 
Eugland  1864  to  1893,  317;  adverse  for  the 
United  States  after  the  War  of  18 12,  577; 
favorable  under  the  tariff  of  1824,  586;  adverse 
before  1S42,  594;  adverse  from  1857  to  iS6r, 
607;  adverse  from  1848  to  1857,  613;  in  favor 
of  the  United  States  in  1892,  648;  United 
States  with  foreign  countries  1892,  1894,  and 
1S95,  745;  from  1791  to  1895,  828;  importance 
of  having  favorable,  818. 

Bank  clearings  in  the  United  States  in  1892 
and  1S95,  751. 

Barlow,  Frederick  Pratt,  e\'idence  on 
German  competition  with  England  in  paper- 
making,  276-78. 


Eug- 


795- 


Beet  sugar  industry,  growth  in  Germany, 
432;  in  Russia,  477;  in  France,  52S;  in  Au- 
stria, 534;  in  United  States,  632,  643. 

Belgium,  growtli  of  foreign  trade  1S54  to 
1S90,  312;  adopts  protection,  138,  544;  pros- 
perity, 545;  statistics  of  foreign  trade,  546; 
statistics  of  wages  in  1890,  719.  See  also 
Flemmings. 

Belk,  Charles,  evidence  on  the  closing  of 
foreign  markets  to  English  cutlery,  270. 

Bell,  Sir  Lowthian,  evidence  on  competi- 
tion with  the  English  foreign  trade  in  iron, 
265;  on  prices  of  pig  iron  in  England,  265; 
gives  statistics  of  the  iron  output  of  the 
world,  266. 

Bentinck,  Lord  George,  on  effects  of  free 
trade,  182. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  on  the  distress  under 
the  tariff  of  1816,  577. 

BIGELOW,  Erastus,  statistics  of  woolen  manu- 
factures in  England,  109;  of  the  linen  indus- 
try, III;  of  silk  manufactures,  112;  of  the 
metal  industries,  114;  of  miscellaneous  in- 
dustries, 117;  of  England's  foreign  trade, 
119;  of  English  import  duties  in  1840,  149; 
of  the  iron  industry,  219. 

BiRCHENiii'Cn,  IlKNRY,  evidence  on  foreign 
conipelitioii  with  Kuglish  silk  industry,  229. 

BiRMiNciiAM  Daily  Times,  on  "what  free 
trade  means, "  in  1849,  224. 

Bismarck,  Prince,  ability  as  a  statesman, 
416;  formation  of  his  economic  policy,  419; 
on  the  idea  of  a  Christian  State,  420;  on 
paternalism,  421;  on  the  effects  of  protection 
and  free  trade,  421;  on  the  benefit  of  wealthy 
individuals  to  a  people,  422;  speech  in  favor 
of  return  to  protection  in  German}',  424. 

Black  Death  of  134S,  55. 

Blackwell,  Kenyon,  statistics  of  the  iron 
industry,  219. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  and  reciprocity,  646. 

Blanqui,  Jerome  Adolphe,  on  Colbert's  eco- 
nomic policy,  4S8. 

Board  of  Trade,  English,  report  on  manu- 
factures in  the  colonies,  83. 

Bonds,  offer  of  i860  in  the  United  States  not 
taken,  607;  issue  of,  by  Cleveland's  adminis- 
tration, 738. 

Booth,  William,  on  the  administration  of  the 
English  Poor  Law  in  1890,  378;  on  the  num- 
ber of  paupers  in  England,  382. 

Bounties,  granted  by  England,  85;  paid  in 
France,  509;  on  shipping  in  Italy,  543;  on 
production  of  sugar  in  United  States,  642. 

Bradley,  Thomas  W.,  evidence  on  the  labor 
cost  of  cutlery,  763. 

Brassey,  Thomas,  magnitude  of  his  railroad 
building,  219;  on  competition  as  affecting 
wages,  349. 

BresiEL,  J.  P.,wages  of  hosiery  operatives,7i7. 

Brewer,  Consul,  on  the  manufacture  of  agri- 
cultural machinery  in  Germany,  431. 

Bright,  John,  career  as  an  apostle  of  free 
trade,  160;  opposes  regulation  of  women's 
and  children's  labor,  203;  on  meeting  com- 
petition by  reduction  of  wages,  S16. 


British  Trade  Journal,  on  the  prosperity 
of  France,  488. 

Brougham,  Lord,  on  English  efforts  to  glut 
the  American  market,  135;  on  the  great 
exports  from  England  in  1815,  136. 

Buchanan,  James,  on  the  panic  of  1857,  73S. 

Burgess,  John  W.,  on  the  relation  of  individ- 
ual States  to  the  "  world-state,"  Soi. 

Burgess,  William,  on  the  labor  cost  of 
pottery,  695;  consular  report  of,  697. 

Butt,  Isaac,  on  the  ruin  of  the  farmers  by 
free  trade,  187. 

Byles,  Sir  John  Barnard,  on  the  destruction 
of  Irish  industries  by  England.  373;  on 
developing  home  production,  819;  on  "re- 
placed capital,"  820. 

Cabinet  makers,  rates  of  wages,  336. 

Caird,  Sir  James,  evidence  on  the  reduction 
of  income  from  agriculture  under  free  trade, 
283-85;  on  the  reduction  of  crops,  285. 

Calhoun,  John  C,  a  protectionist  in  1824, 
585;  a  free  trader  in  1S32,  589. 

Canada,  successive  tariffs,  553;;  prosperity 
under  protection,  553;  statistics  of  produc- 
tion and  foreign  trade,  555. 

Capital,  British,  at  close  of  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, 93,  97;  growth  of,  from  1819  to  1845, 
124;  importance  as  a  commercial  vifeapon, 
207;  of  England  enhanced  by  gold  mining 
in  Australia  and  California,  216,  217;  unre- 
liable statistics  concerning  British,  in  1S86, 
325,  326,  328,  381. 

Car-building,  product.  United  States,  700. 

Carey,  Henry  C,  on  adoption  of  protection , 
England,  46;  on  protection,  France,  488;  on 
benefits  of  promoting  home  industry,  59S; 
author  of  Republican  tariff  plank  of  iS6o, 
616;  on  raw  materials  as.  a  relative  ternj, 
755;  definition  of  political  economy,  787. 

Carey,  JIathew,  secretary  of  Friends  of  Na- 
tional Industrj',  578;  his  Political  Econo- 
mist, 580;  eulogized  by  Henry  Clay,  582. 

Carlisle,  John  G.,  on  free  trade,  728;  on 
exports  of  gold,  814. 

Carpet  manufacture,  growth  in  the  United 
States,  683. 

Carriage  manufacture.  United  States,  700. 

Carrying  trade.     See  Navigation  Laws. 

Carthaginians,  commerce,  11. 

Carver,  Frederic,  evidence  on  the  decline  of 
the  British  lace  industry,  263. 

CaTchings,  T.  C,  Cleveland's  letter  to,  741. 

Charlis,  G.,  Jr.,  evidence  on  competition 
with  England  in  paper  making,  278. 

Charter  of  the  Nations,  passage  from,  on 
the  struggle  of  home  industries  for  existence, 
1S9. 

Cheapness,  campaign  of,  201;  of  men,  202;  of 
production,  secured  by  reducing  wages,  242. 

Chemical  industry,  decline  in  England 
under  free  trade,  274-76;  growth  in  Russia. 
476;  increase  of  product  in  United  States,  69S. 

Child-labor,  demanded  for  cheapnes.s,  202; 
regulated  by  parliament,  203. 

Choate,  Rufus,  on  the  Constitutionality  of 
protection  in  the  United  States,  568. 


8-1'J 


Cities,  free,  industrial  growth,  23. 

Clark,  Charles  H.,  evidence  on  the  labor 
cost  of  knit  goods,  764. 

Clark,  Robert,  evidence  on  the  decline  of 
the  English  silk  industry,  231. 

Clay,  Henry,  on  the  tariff  bill  of  1820,  579; 
speech  on  the  tariff  of  1824,  581;  on  a  tariff 
discriminating  for  protection,  594. 

ClELand, ,  on  the  lace  curtain  manufac- 
ture in  Scotland  and  the  United  States,  676. 

Cleveland,  GrovER,  elected  by  deceit,  597;  a 
convert  to  Cobdenism,  626;  on  the  existence 
of  tin  plate  works  in  the  United  States,  645; 
message  of  1887  on  the  tariff,  725;  on  the 
Democratic  tariff  policy,  733;  on  the  alleged 
evils  of  protection,  736;  on  panic  of  1893, 
738;  letters  to  Wilson  and  Catchings,  74I. 

Clodd,  Edward,  on  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, 788. 

Clothing,  of  English  artisans,  cheap  and 
poor,  346. 

Clothing  industry,  condition  in  the  United 
States  in  i860  and  1890,  684. 

■Coal  mining,  statistics  of  wages  in  Scotland 
and  the  United  States,  692;  statistics  of  labor 
cost,  767. 

Cobden,  Richard,  on  the  prosperity  of  Eng- 
land under  protection,  124;  on  the  commer- 
cial greatness  of  England,  130;  career  as  an 
apostle  of  free  trade,  160;  in  parliament,  163; 
on  natural  protection,  172;  on  the  benefits 
of  free  trade  in  corn,  172;  ridicules  the 
defenders  of  the  Corn  Laws,  173;  on  the  real 
views  of  parliament  that  repealed  the  Corn 
Laws,  175;  gives  real  motive  for  repeal,  178, 
179;  his  personal  interests,  180;  on  reduction 
of  rents,  188;  on  power  of  cheapness,  201; 
opposes  regulation  of  women's  and  children's 
labor,  203;  campaign  on  Continent  of  Europe, 
414;  secures  a  commercial  treaty  between 
Prussia  and  Austria,  533;  efforts  for  free 
trade  on  Continent  of  Europe,  558. 

Cobden  Club,  distributes  literature  in  the 
United  States,  151;  fallacious  arguments, 
374;  propaganda.  United  States,  721-24. 

Colbert,  Jean  Baptiste,  economic  policy, 
491. 

Coleman,  John,  evidence  on  the  decline  of 
agriculture  under  free  trade,  2S6. 

Colonial  Policy  of  Great  Britain,  82,  85. 

Colonies  and  Possessions  of  Great  Britain, 
acquisition  of,  80,  81;  suppression  of  manu- 
factures in,  82-85,  373.  569. 

Colton,  Calvin,  on  the  incomes  of  British 
nobility  and  gentry,  217;  on  the  panic  of 
1837,  592;  on  the  scarcity  of  money  under 
free  trade,  659. 

Commerce,  general  divisions,  3;  of  the  na- 
tions of  antiquity,  S.     See  also  Trade. 

Companies, trading,  of  England,  69-71. 

Competition,  England's  power  to  destroy 
rivals  under  free,  in  1846,  141-44;  the  de- 
structive kind,  206;  as  a  stimulus  to  pro- 
gress, 208;  effect  on  prices,  713;  between 
unequal  parties,  804-06;  international,  and 
foreign  trade,  759,  811. 

54 


Confederate  Constitution,  article  of,  pro- 
hibiting protective  duties,  616 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  on  interdependence  of 
industries,  773. 

CoNSU.MER,  fallacy  of  legislating  for  benefit 
of,  322-24;  equitable  and  legal  rights  of,  800. 

Continental  System  of  Napoleon,  505. 

Cooper,  Peter,  on  the  commercial  distress  in 
the  United  States  in  1S57,  607. 

Cooper,  Thomas,  tariff  views,  581. 

Cooper  and  Hewitt,  on  foreign  competition 
with  American  iron  mills,  690. 

Copper-working.   See  Metal  working. 

Corn  Laws,  passed  in  reign  of  Edw-ard  IV., 
48;  denounced  by  Dr.  Bowring,  159;  revision 
of  1842,  162;  repealed,  177;  real  motive  for 
repeal,  178,  179,  defended  by  Lord  Derby, 
1S3-85;  pas.sage  of  repeal  bill,  187;  effect  of 
repeal,  187;  protest  of  the  peers  against  re- 
peal, 278;  effect  of  the  repeal  on  Ireland, 
373.     See  also  Anti-Corn  Law  League. 

CosmopoliT.vnism,  should  not  be  favored 
over  national  interests,  801. 

Cotters,  rights  and  obligations,  38. 

Cotton  Industry,  growth  of,  in  England  from 
1820  to  i860,  105-107;  magnitude  in  Eug'.and 
in  1S56,  220;  statistics  of  European  countries, 
221;  the  "battle  of  the  fabrics,"  233;  in  Asia, 
235;  decline  in  England  under  free  trade, 
235-51;  statistics  for  England,  244-50;  rates 
of  wages,  334;  wages  in  English  mills  in 
1892  and  1852,  351-53;  wages  in  the  United 
States,  363;  need  of  protection,  419;  growth 
in  Russia,  461-63;  advance  under  protection 
in  France,  511;  cotton  as  king,  592;  condi- 
tion in  1S42  and  1847,  597,  601;  statistics  in 
the  United  vStates  from  1847  to  i860,  610; 
growth  in  the  United  States,  672-75;  wages 
in  American  and  in  English  mills,  673; 
statistics  from  1830  to  1S90  in  England  and 
America,  674;  dependent  upon  protection  in 
the  United  States,  675;  labor  cost  of  yarns 
in  England  and  the  United  States,  764. 

Cox,  S.  S.,  on  free  trade,  728. 

Crawford,  J.  M.,  on  the  foreign  trade  of 
Russia,  457. 

Cromwell.  Oliver,  peremptory  demands  of 
the  Dutch,  75. 

Cronmeyer,  W.  C,  on  the  labor  required  to 
supply  United  States  w-ith  tin  plate,  645. 

Crusades,  effect  on  Western  civilization,  39. 

Cuba,  economic  conditions,  140. 

Cunningham,  W.,  work  on  industrial  history 
of  England,  35;  on  mode  of  life  of  early 
English  nobilit}-,  40;  on  effects  of  protection 
in  reign  of  Edward  III.,  47;  on  the  effects 
of  protection  up  to  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary, 
49;  on  protection  under  Elizabeth,  64. 

Cutlery  industry,  effect  of  tariffs  of  Ger- 
many, France  and  llnited  States  over 
British,  270;  product  in  the  United  State.s, 
700 ;  labor  cost  of  equal  quantities  in  the 
United  States  and  Germany,  763. 

Dall.as,  Alexander,  on  the  value  of  the 
home  market,  575. 

Danish  invasion  of  England,  36,  37. 


Darwin,  Charles  Robert,  on  the  origin  of 

the  theory  of  natural  selection,  793. 
Dawson, \Vm.  H.,  on  customs  barriers  between 
the  German  States,  410;  on  steps  toward  pro- 
tection in  Germany,  41S;  on  protection  in 
Germany  after  1S79,  426- 
Debt,  of  Kngland,  97,  130;  from  1814  to  1S43, 
150;  of  Italy,  543;  of  France,  524;  of  United 
States,    1843-1850,    600;    increase  of,    1857- 
1S61,  607;  at  close  of  Civil  War,  617;  from 
1857  to  1861,  and  1865  to  1869,  618;  decrease 
from   1S65  to   1890,   631;  in  iSSo  and  1890, 
637;  increase  under  Cleveland,  752. 
Deductive  method  of  economic  discussion, 

7S6. 
De  Foe,  Daniel,  on  the  condition  of  labor  in 

England  in  1724,  90. 
De  Gama,  Visco,  discoverer  of  route  to  India, 

28. 
Democratic  Party,  Northern  Statesmen  of 
protectionists  in  1828,  585;  Southern  wing 
of,  espouse  the  cause  of  free  trade  in  1S32, 
587-91;  wedded  to  free  trade  in  1833,  593; 
deceptive  campaign  of,  in  1844,  594-96; 
favors  free  trade  in  1846,  599;  platform  of 
1848,  603;  dominated  by  the  South,  605,  606; 
declares  for  free  trade  in  1856,  605;  enacts 
the  tariff  law  of  1S57,  605;  Southern  wing 
rebel  and  adopt  free  trade  in  their  constitu- 
tion, 616;  attempts  at  free  trade  legislation 
in  1884  and  1888,  626,  627,  630;  elects  Cleve- 
land President  in  1884,  626;  defeated  in 
1S88,  729;  triumph  of  Democracy  and  free 
trade  in  1892,  Chapter  vi  on,  721  to  773; 
deception  of,  in  campaign  of  1892,  732-35. 
Denmark,  growth  of  foreign    trade,  1854  to 

1890,  512;  industrial  condition,  548. 
Denslow,  Van  Buren,  on  tariff  of  1833,  591. 
Depew,  Chauncey   M.,  on  the   freight  ton- 
nage in  the  United  States,  824. 
Depression  of  Trade,   in   England,    1819, 
causes  of,  131-33;  in   1846,    174;    persistent, 
caused  by  free  trade   in    England,   1874  to 
1890,  224-300;  in   Germany,  418;  in  United 
States,  from  1815  to  1824, '577;  from  183510 
1S42,   592;     from   1854  to  1S60,   604-07;    in 
1873,  622;  from  1893  to  1896,  737-53- 
Derby,  Lord,  benefits  of  Com  Laws,  1S3-85. 
Disrael  I ,  Benjamin,  his  denunciation.of  Peel, 
181;  prophesies  disaster  under  free  trade,  1S5. 
Distribution  of  wealth,  S25. 
Dixon,  James  Willis,  evidence  on  decline  of 

English  metal  and  glass  industries,  267. 
Dodge,  J.  R.,  on  needed  diversityin  American 

agriculture,  664. 
Drummond,  Henry,  on  the  survival  of  the 

fittest,  789. 
Druse.  S.  B.  L.,  evidence  on  the  decrease  in 
purchasing  power  among  the  farming  popu- 
lation under  free  trade,  287. 
Dun,  R.  G.  &  Co.,  on  the  panic  of  1893,  737. 
DuNCKLEY,  Henry,  on  prosperity  of  silk  in- 
dustry in  England  under  protection,  112;  on 
progress  of  England  under  protection,  125. 
DUNDAS,  Consul,  report   on  the  decrease  of 
British  trade  in  Germany,  437. 


Dutch,  commercial  rise  and  progress,  26;  de- 
fenders of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  27; 
begin  direct  trade  with  the  East,  28;  estab- 
lishment of  Dutch  East  India  Company,  2S: 
drive  out  Portuguese  and  English  from  the 
East, -8;  Dutch  West  India  Company  foruied, 
29;  period  of  commercial  supremacy,  29; 
monopoly  of  carrying  trade,  71;  rivalry  with 
English,  74;  war  with  England,  75-77;  com- 
merce after  war  with  England,  77. 
Duties,  by  whom  paid,  320,  322;  rates  under 
the  Zollverein,  411;  rates  fixed  by  the  treaty 
of  1786  between  England  and  France,  502. 
Earthen  and  China  ware,  statistics  of  ex- 
ports from  the  United  Kingdom,  39S. 
East  India  Company,   English,   formed,  69; 

growth,  70;  dominion  extended,  79. 
East  Indian  trade,  passes  from  the  Portu- 
guese to  the  Dutch,  28. 
Economic  man  imaginary,  794. 
Education,  technical,  in  Germany,  450. 
Edward  III.,  puts  restrictions  upon   foreign 
merchants,  45;  the  Father  of  English  Com- 
merce, 46. 
Egyptians,  ancient  commerce,  9. 
Elizabeth,  of  England,  commercial  impor- 
tance of  her  reign,  59. 
Ellkrson,  Thomas,  statistics  of  the  English 

cotton  industrv.  245. 
Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  picture  of   rural 

England  about  1S50,  288. 
Emigration,  of  English  silk  operatives  to 
America,  231;  of  skilled  workmen  from 
England,  271. 
England,  delay  in  establishing  manufactures, 
35;  successive  invasions,  36;  political  rights 
revolutionized,  36;  laud  tenure  after  the 
Norman  Conquest,  37;  origin  of  the  trading 
class,  39;  mode  of  life  of  the  early  nobles, 
40;  condition  of  common  people  improved, 
41;  early  policy  of  free  trade,  42;  English 
industrv  in  thc'fourteenth  century,  42;  com- 
mercial'weakness  in  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries,  43;  revolt  of  English  mer- 
chants against  the  aliens,  44;  exporting  of 
wool  and  importing  of  cloth  prohibited.  46, 
49:  first  attempts  at  protective  legislation, 
46-49;  rise  and  fall  of  trade  guilds,  50-54; 
deplorable  condition  of  the  masses  before 
inauguration  of  protective  policy.  55-5'^; 
protective  policv  inaugurated  under  Eliza-, 
beth,  59-66;  iiiiniigration  of  Huguenots, 
67;  need  of  foreign  trade,  67;  beginnings 
of  foreign  trade,  69;  Raleigh's  report  on  its 
foreign  trade,  71;  origin  of  commercial 
supremacy,  74;  demands  reparation  of  the 
Dutch,  75;  claims  right  of  the  flag,  76;  war 
with  the  Dutch,  75-77;  commerce  after  the 
war,  77;  navigation  acts,  77,  82;  wars  with 
the  French,  78;  gains  from  the  Napoleonic 
wars,  79;  li.st  of  colonies  with  date  and  mode 
of  acquisition,  80;  commercial  .supremacy 
the  constant  object  of  her  foreign  policy, 
81;  jealousv  of  colonial  manufactures,  83; 
severe  laws'  against,  84;  promotes  home  in- 
dustries,  85;     restricts    rival    industries    in 


Ireland,  S5;  grants  bounties  and  monopolies, 
86;  industrial  advance  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, 87,  89;  benefits  from  inventions  of 
machinery,  87;  prohibits  the  export  of 
machinery,  88;  interna!  improvements,  89; 
iron  and  potter^'  industries,  89;  growth  of 
population,  90;  'prosperity  of  manufactures 
and  agriculture  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
90-92;'incomes  and  wealth,  93;  table  of  ex- 
ports and  imports,  from  1697-1793,  94-96; 
commercial  strength  shown  in  the  Napo- 
leonic wars,  96;  loans  to  other  nations,  97; 
prosperity  due  to  protection,  97;  progress 
of  industries  in  the  nineteenth  century,  99; 
table  showing  growth  of  population  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  100;  statistics  of  occupa- 
tions, loi ;  well  adapted  to  agriculture,  ro3; 
statistics  of  the  import  of  wheat,  104;  progress 
of  the  cotton  manufacture  from  1820  to  i86o, 
105;  table  of  imports  of  raw  cotton  and 
exports  of  manufactures,  io5;  growth  of  the 
woolen  manufacture,  108;  table  of  imports 
of  wool  and  exports  of  woolen  manufac- 
tures, 109;  growth  of  the  linen  manufacture, 
1 10;  table  of  imports  of  flax  and  exports  of 
lineu  goods,  iii;  growth  of  the  silk  manu- 
facture" III;  table  of  icuports  of  raw  silk  aiid 
exports  of  silk  goods,  H2;  growth  of  the 
metal  industries,  113;  table  of  exports  of 
metal  goods,  114;  growth  of  miscellaneoas 
industries,  116;  table  of  exports  of  miscel- 
laneous manufactures,  117;  table  showing 
total  foreign  trade  from  1793  to  1S59,  119; 
fluctuations  in  prices  of  products,  121;  im- 
provement in  foreign  trade  not  due  to  free 
trade,  123;  testimony  to  her  progress  under 
protection,  123-25;  effects  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  machinery  and  other  causes  on  her 
industry,  127-29;  benefits  from  the  Napo- 
leonic wars.  130;  commerce  the  aim  of 
foreign  policy,  130;  business  crisis  of  1815- 
19,  131;  causes,  132;  origin  of  the  free  trade 
movement,  133;  competition  with  American 
manufactures,  134,  135;  invasion  of  Conti- 
nental markets  in  1815,  135;  protection  in 
other  countries  restricts  English  trade,  136; 
137;  loss  of  foreign  markets,  138;  object  in 
praising  foreign  commerce,  139;  London  mer- 
chants and  manufacturers  petition  parlia- 
ment for  free  trade  legislation,  and  reasons  as- 
signed, 139;  advantagesof  foreign  trade  to,  139, 
143;  facilities  for  manufacturing,  142;  neces- 
sity for  foreign  trade,  142;  protection  claimed 
to  "be  no  longer  necessary,  143;  reaijy  for  free 
industrial  competition,  144;  menaced  by 
protection  in  other  countries,  145;  efforts  to 
put  down  the  protective  policy,  146;  regards 
free  trade  as  a  matter  of  diplomacy,  147; 
tariff's  revised,  148;  condition  of  the  tariff  in 
1S40,  149;  supremacy  in  cotton  manufacture, 
150;  statistics  of  debt  and  revenue,  150; 
alleged  crudities  in  tariff,  151;  duties  col- 
lected for  revenue,  153;  resources  of  raw 
materials,  155;  supremacy  in  manufacturing 
industries,  155;  duties  of  no  effect  on  manu- 
factures,   156;    repeal    of    protective    duties 


urged  by  manufacturers,  156;  the  free  trade 
program',  156;  interest  of  agriculture  in  pro- 
tection, 157;  the  time  ripe  for  free  trade, 
15S;  threatened  loss  of  foreign  markets  for 
manufactures,  158;  rise  of  the  Anti-Corn 
Law  League,  159;  election  of  1841,  162;  Corn 
Laws  revised,  162;  income  tax  imposed,  163; 
tariff  revised  in  1842,  163-65;  analysis  of 
revenue  from  duties  in  1S42,  165;  statis- 
tics of  revenue  from  duties  in  1849,  ^65; 
low  tariff  an  obstacle  to  free  trade,  167; 
intelligence  and  liberality  of  the  land-own- 
ers, 168;  deceptive  arguments  used  to 
convert  tenant  farmers  to  free  trade,  169-74; 
Corn  Laws  repealed,  177;  duties  repealed 
in  1S45  and  1846,  177;  free  traders  did  not 
wish  manufactures  imported,  179;  speeches 
against  free  trade,  1S1-190;  superiority  in 
manufactures,  186,  216;  free  trade  in- 
troduced by  degrees,  190;  statistics  of 
revenue  from  customs  duties,  191;  final 
steps  in  free  trade,  193;  table  showing 
the  customs  tariff  in  1S94,  193-95;  statis- 
tics of  revenue  in  1894,  195;  oppressive 
system  of  taxation,  197;  means  adopted 
for  further  extensions  of  markets,  200; 
the  campaign  of  cheapness,  201;  policy 
of  buying  cheap  and  selling  dear,  205; 
mode  of  destroying  rivils  un.lfr  free  trade, 
206;  favorable  conditi.'i.  fr.  ni  ,  ivy  to  1S74, 
214;  increased  supji'/  "'  .'!■.  ii''  1  >  ■■•;  metals, 
217;  large  resources  <m  ■  i|.rL,il,  j;;;  condi- 
tions favoring  her  iion  nidustry,  21S;  mag- 
nitude of  her  textile  industries,  220;  real 
cause  of  growing  commerce  under  free 
trade.  222;  effects  of  free  trade,  225;  Royal 
Commission  on  the  Depression  of  Trade,  227; 
decline  of  the  silk  industry  under  free  trade, 
228-33;  of  the  cotton  industry,  233;  how 
supremacy  in  the  cotton  trade  was  secured, 
233-35;  decline  of  the  cotton  industry,  under 
free  trade,  235-51;  table  showing  exports  of 
cotton  manufactures  from  1871  to  1889,  244- 
48;  decline  of  the  woolen  indu.stry,  252-57; 
decline  of  the  linen  industry,  257-60;  de- 
cline of  the  jute  industry,  260-62;  decline  of 
the  lace  industry,  262;  decline  of  the  metal 
industries,  264-73;  decrease  of  exports'  and 
increase  of  imports  of  iron,  266;  capacity  of 
her  iron  industries.  274;  decline  of  the 
chemical  industry,  274-76;  decline  of  the 
paper  industry,  276-78;  decline  of  agricul- 
ture. 278-88;  agriculture  capable  of  supplying 
the  home  demand,  290;  area  and  population 
of  the  United  Kingdom  compared  with 
those  of  six  of  the  United  States,  290;  clas- 
sification of  lauds  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
291;  decline  of  miscellaneous  industries 
under  free  trade,  291-95;  classes  not  affected 
by  the  depression  of  trade,  296;  extracts 
from  renorts  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
the  Depression  of  Trade,  296-98;  producers 
the  chief  sufferers,  297;  table  of  imports  of 
certain  classes  from  1836  to  1890,  304;  statis- 
tical analysis  of  her  external  trade,  303-7; 
imports  of  competing  products  increase,  306; 


injurious  competition  with  home  industries, 
307 ;  table  of  exports  of  certain  classes,  30S- 1 1 ; 
causes  of  the  decline  disclosed,  311;  statistics 
of  growth  of  foreign  trade,  lS54to  l8go,  312, 
314;  statistics  of  emigration,  315;  table  show- 
iugadversebalanceof  trade  from  iS64to  1S93, 
317;  how  the  balance  is  settled,  3 1 S;  injured  by 
investments  abroad,  319,  320;  lack  of  eco- 
nomic statistics,  325;  discrepancies  between 
calculations,  326;  debit  side  of  free  trade,  328; 
decrease  in  the  number  of  producers,  329; 
early  prosperity  under  protection,  330;  pov- 
erty of  the  masses,  330;  decline  of  wages,  and 
condition  of  laboring  classes  under  free 
trade, 330-365;  how  injured  by  free  trade,  365- 
67;  growth  of  protectionist  sentiment,  367; 
probability  of  a  return  to  protection,  369-72; 
loss  of  industrial  supremacy,  370;  commer- 
cial policy  with  Ireland,  372;  poor  laws 
and  pauperism,  375-S3;  unfortunate  con- 
dition cf  the  working  classes,  383;  table  of 
agricultural  products  imported,  3S6;  tables 
of  food  products  imported,  386,  394;  tables 
of  manufactures  imported,  38S-9I;  table  of 
raw  materials  imported,  392;  table  of  duti- 
able articles  imported,  394;  table  of  textile 
fabrics  exported,  396;  table  of  exports  of 
metals,  glass,  earthen  and  china  ware,  39S; 
tables  of  exports  of  miscellaneous  products, 
400-3;  control  of  the  market  of  Germany, 
406-S;  diminishing  market  in  Germany,  435- 
42,  44S;  commercial  relations  with  France, 
501;  secure  position  of  manufactures  in  1S7S, 
502;  effect  of  Napoleon's  Continental  Sys- 
tem, 506;  commercial  treaty  with  France, 
516;  policy  toward  the  American  colonies, 
564;  early 'trade  with  the  United  States,  568; 
prohibition  on  the  export  of  machinery, 
573;  exports  to  the  United  States  from  1846 
to  1S60;  60S;  exports  to  the  United  States  in 
1S95,  685;  method  of  industrial  competition, 
713,  714;  statistics  of  wages  in  1890,  719;  in 
1891  and  1S92,  720;  reception  of  President 
Cleveland's  message  on  the  tariff,  726;  table  of 
imports  of  agricultural  products  in  1894,  760. 

Enci,E,  Frederick,  on  the  expected  benefit 
to  England  of  free  trade,  199, 

Europe,  able  to  supply  the  world  with  manu- 
factures, 18. 

EvAxs,  David,  on  restricted  commerce,  324. 

Exports  in  English  ships,  82;  of  machinery 
from  England  prohibited,  88;  from  Great 
Britain  to  all  parts  of  the  world  from  1697 
to  1793,  94;  of  cottons  from  England  in  1845, 
105;  per  cent  increase  of  fabrics  from  Eng- 
land 1831  to  1S45,  107;  of  wool  from  Eng- 
land, 108;  of  woolens  from  England,  1820 
to  1H40,  109;  of  linen  from  England  1820 
to  1S60,  in;  of  silk  goods  from  England 
from  1820  to  1S60,  112;  of  metals  from  the 
United  Kingdom  from  1820  to  1859,  1 14;  of 
miscellaneous  manufactures  from  the  United 
Kingdom  from  1831  to  1859,  117;  total  from 
the  United  Kingdom  from  1793  to  1859,  iig; 
di (Terence  between  real  and  declared  values 
in   England   122;    J,ord   Brougham   on    first 


shipments,  135;  from  England  to  United 
States  from  1792  to  1815,  134,  135;  Tooke  on 
policy  regarding,  139;  of  textiles  from  Eng- 
land in  1S56,  222;  of  cotton  goods  from 
United  Kingdom,  1870-1SS9,  245;  of  textiles 
from  Germany,  1S88,  249;  of  linens  from 
England,  1S60  to  1890,  257-58-59;  of  iron 
and  steel  manufactures  from  Great  Britain. 
1872  to  1S92,  266;  re-exports  from  United 
Kingdom,  1836  to  1890,  304;  of  domestic  pro- 
ductions from  United  Kingdom,  i860  to  1892, 
308;  growth  of  in  thirteen  principal  coun- 
tries from  1S54  to  1890,312;  comparison  of, 
between  United  States  and  United  King- 
dom, iS74andiS92,  314;  of  United  Kingdom, 
186410  1S93,  317;  of  manufactured  and  partly 
manufactured  articles  from  Great  Britain', 
396-9S-400-02 ;  of  farm  produce  from  Ger- 
many in  1S94,  430;  of  beef,  mutton  and  pork 
from  the  United  States,  Austria  and  the  Kiver 
Platte,  in  1S.S7,  430;  of  sugar  from  Germany, 
1876  to  1890.  433;  of  cutlery  from  Germany, 
439;  of  various  articles  from  Germany,  1872  to 
1886,  447;  from  German  customs  territory, 
iSgi,  44S;  of  textile  fabrics  from  Germany, 
1893,  450;  from  Russia,  1824  to  1849,  456;  of 
Russian  cotton  goods  increasing,  462;  of 
metal  goods  from  Russia,  474;  total  from 
Russia,  1S90-91,  482;  from  France,  1S20  to 
1861,  512;  of  bullion  from  France,  1822  to 
1S29,  512;  of  woolens  and  cottons  from 
France,  1820,  1S30,  1840,  514;  from  Austria 
to  the  United  States,  1893,  535;  of  Italv,  1890, 
53S;  of  Italy  to  United  States,  539;  from  Bel- 
gium and  Holland,  546,  547;  from  Switzer- 
land, 547;  from  Norway  and  Sweden,  550; 
from  Spain  and  Portugal,  551;  from  Asiatic 
countries  to  United  States,  551;  from  Africa 
and  Australasia  to  United  States,  552;  from 
Canada,  1894,  555;  from  small  American 
countries  to  United  States,  556;  from  United 
States  from  1784  to  1790,  572;  from  United 
States,  1S15  to  1818,  577:  of  cotton  from 
United  States,  1847  to  1S60,  610;  from  I'niled 
States,  1S48  to  1857,  613;  of  gold  and  silver 
from  United  States,  1848  to  1857,  613;  from 
the  United  States,  1892,  649;  from  the  United 
States,  1892,  1894,  1895,  745,  S44;  of  agricul- 
tural products  from  the  United  States.  1894 
and  1895,  749;  from  United  States.  1791  to 
1895,  828;  of  gold  and  silver  from  United 
States,  1S21  to  1895.  831. 

ExPENDiTURE.s  of  United  Kingdom,  1S94. 
196.  197;  of  United  States,  1789  to  1S95,  S37. 

Fair  Trade  Journai,  on  reduction  in  land 
values  under  free  trade,  287;  on  obstacles  in 
a  searching  investigation  of  free  trade,  290; 
on  who  pays  duties,  321;  on  legislation  loi 
consumer,  322-24;  on  decrease  of  producer- 
in  England,  329;  on  McKinley  act,  653, 

Fallows.  W.,  &  Co.,  on  increasing  foreign 
competition  in  British  iron  industry,  264. 

Farms,  depreciation  of  value,  England,  2S6, 
United  States,  661. 

Faucher,  Juui'S,  on  specific  duties  in  Prussia, 
410;  Cobden's  campaign  in  Europe,  560-61. 


Fawcett,  Henry,  on  the  poverty-  of  English 
agricultural  laborers,  671. 

Fessendex,  \\'ir.i.iAM  I'iTT,  ou  the  financial 
strength  of  ilii-  Iiik.ii  States,  617;  on  the 
interpretation  .if   the   duty  on  tin  plate,  643. 

Feudal  S\'#te.m,  in  England,  36,  38. 

Fibre  industries,  development  in  Russia, 
463;  possibilities  of  the  United  States,  6SS. 

Fillmore  Millard,  on  the  failure  of  a  low 
tariff,  603. 

Fisheries,  encouraged  in  England  under  Eli- 
zabeth, 65;  England's  insignificance  in,  72- 
74;  of  Russia,  480. 

Flemmings,  manufactures,  25-31;  destruction 
of  industries,  26;  domestic  industry,  their 
chief  source  of  wealth,  26;  imuiigratiou  of 
weavers  into  England,  42;  obtain  privileges 
in  London,  43. 

Florence,  manufactures,  22. 

Food  products,  statistics  of  imports  into  the 
United  Kingdom,  3S6-94;  statistics  of  ex- 
ports from  the  United  Kingdom,  402. 

Ford,  E.,  statistics  of  wages  in  American  and 
European  glass  works,  699. 

Ford,  John,  prices  lower  than  duty,  772. 

Foreign  investments,  English,  evidence  of 
industrial  decay,  318,  319,  320;  of  Germany, 
452. 

Foreign  markets,  small  value  compared  to 
the  American,  757;  little  chance  for  the 
United  States  to  gain  them,  758-811. 

Foreign  Trade  unimportant  for  a  coun- 
try of  varied  resources,  i;  conditions  under 
which  it  can  be  advantageously  engaged  in, 
4,  5;  not  to  be  engaged  in  at  the  sacrifice  of 
home  trade,  4,  7,  14,  16;  of  the  ancients,  8; 
conditions  making  it  profitable  to  the  Vene- 
tians, 18,  19;  causes  of  decline  in  Italian 
cities,  22,  23;  of  Europe  in  the  middle  ages, 
23,  24;  circumstances  under  which  the  Dutch 
engaged  in,  26.  27,  30,  31;  of  England  mo- 
nopolized by  foreigners  until  the  fifteenth 
ceutury,  42,  43;  first  attempts  of  England  to 
engage  in,  71;  insignificance  of  England's 
in  1604,  71-74;  England's  war  with  the 
Dutch  to  gain,  75-77;  navigation  laws  to 
foster,  77,  78;  England's  wars  with  France 
and  Spain  to  extend,  78,  79;  foreign  pos- 
sessions acquired  to  extend,  80,  81;  Eng- 
land's growth  of  1697-1793,  94-96;  Sta- 
tistics of  England's,  1793-1859.  119,  120; 
England  acquires  a  monopoly  of,  through 
Napoleonic  wars,  130,  131;  peculiar  impor- 
tance of,  to  England,  139,  140;  iiot  so  neces- 
sar}'  to  prosperity  of  Russia  and  United 
States,  141,  142;  protection  in  foreign  coun- 
tries detrimental  to  England's,  156-159; 
cheapness  the  basis  of  England's  supremacy 
in,  201;  sacrifices  of  British  manufacturers 
to  extend,  206;  the  power  of  capital  in  secur- 
ing, 207,  pre-eminence  of  England  in  when 
free  trr.de  was  adopted,  214-216,  causes 
which  stimulated  England's,  1846-1S74,  214- 
223;  decline  of,  in  cotton  goods,  244;  in 
woolen  goods,  252;  in  jute  manufactures,  261; 
in  lace  goods,  262;  in  iron  and  steel,  266;  in 


domestic  production,  308,  309 ;  growth  of, 
from  1S54  to  1S90;  of  thirteen  leading  na- 
tions, 312;  comparison  of  Great  Britain  and 
United  States,  1S74-1S90,  314;  England's 
adverse  balance,  1S64-1893,  317;  restriction 
of,  in  England  through  decay  of  home  in- 
dustries, 324;  of  Ireland  destroyed,  372; 
statistics  of  England's,  386-403  ;  extension 
of  Germany,  435;  decline  of  British  trade 
with  Germany,  435;  increase  of  German, 
447 ;  articles  of  German,  448 ;  vigorous 
efforts  of  Germans  to  extend,  451;'  con- 
stitutional power  of  United  States  Con.gress 
to  regulate,  573;  effect  of  the  Embargo 
Act  on,  576  ;  growth  of  the  United  States 
from  1S60  to  1S90,  631;  encouraged  by 
McKinley  bill,  640 ;  reciprocity  treaties  to 
promote,'646,  647;  increase  of,  under  McKin- 
ley bill,  731;  decline  of,  under  Gorman- 
Wilson  bill,  745;  not  extended  by  free  raw  ma- 
terial, 757;  limited  in  agricultural  progress, 
by  foreign  competition,  758-60 ;  in  manu- 
factures restricted  bj-  high  wages,  763-69  ; 
compefitiou  in,  804-06;  advantage  com- 
pared with  home  trade,  811-27;  only  to  be 
gained  by  selling  cheaper  than  competitors, 
S12;  table  showing  growth  in  certain  coun- 
tries, 312;  value  exaggerated  by  free  traders, 
819.    See  also  Imports  and  Exports. 

France,  superiority  to  England  in  certain 
branches  of  the  woolen  industrj-,  256,  257; 
growth  of  foreign  trade,  1854-1890,  312; 
early  economic  condition,  488;  accession  of 
Henry  IV.,  489;  persecution  of  the  Hugue- 
nots by  Louis  XIV.,  492  ;  adoption  of  pro- 
tection, 492;  debased  coinage  and  paper 
money,  494;  reign  of  Louis  XV.,  495:  of 
Louis  XVI.,  495;  economic  condition  before 
the  Revolution,  495-97;  rise  of  the  Physio- 
crats, 49S;  commercial  relations  with  Eng- 
land, 501;  effect  of  the  treaty  of  1785  with 
England,  504;  tariff  of  1791,  505;  condition 
at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  506; 
tariff  legislation  from  1815  to  1860,507-9, 
expansion  of  industries  under  protection, 
509;  improvement  of  agriculture  under  pro- 
tection, 510;  of  the  silk  industry,  510;  of  the 
cotton  industry,  511;  of  woolen  industry,  511; 
commercial  statistics,  512-15;  general  indus- 
trial growth.  515,  524;  partial  free  trade  and 
its  effects,  516;  renewed  protection,  517;  views 
of  M.  Thiers,  517-24;  need  of  protection  for 
textile  industries,  519;  lacks  cheapness  of 
production,  521;  table  of  agricultural  produc- 
tion in  1893,  525;  statistics  of  manufactures, 
526;  of  exports,  527;  rise  of  beet-sugar  indus- 
try, 528;  a  country  that  largely  supplies  its 
own  needs,  531;  tariff  attacked  by  Cobden, 
559;  statistics  of  wages  in  1890,  719. 

Free  Cities,  growth  of,  in  England,  38,  39. 

Freedom  of  Contract,  795;  contention  of 
free  traders  relative  to,  203,  204.  See  Liberty. 

Freemen,  English,  origin  of,  3S-41. 

Free  Tr.\de,  effects  of  its  operation  before 
1650,  30;  policy  of  England  prior  to  four- 
teenth century,  42-49;  desired   by  English 


cottou  manufacturers,  io6;  not  the  cause  of 
improvement  iu  England's  foreign  trade 
after  1S45,  123;  origin  and  causes  of  the 
movement  in  England,  133-47;  basal  prin- 
ciples not  universal,  140;  policy  prompted 
by  self-interest,  143,  157;  why  advantage- 
ous to  England,  145,  206;  advocated  by 
manufacturers,  156;  program  of,  156,  157; 
frauds  perpetrated  on  the  farmers  in  the 
interests  of,  171,  172;  legislation,  how  pro- 
cured, 173-77;  its  promoters  set  the  farmers 
against  the  land-owners,  169;  how  Cobden 
said  it  would  benefit  the  farmers,  172; 
the  policy  introduced,  177;  betrayal  of 
the  farmers  to  procure,  178,  iSo,  188,  189, 
190;  brings  distress  to  the  farmers  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  187;  necessitates  a  struggle 
of  home  industries  for  existence,  1S9;  cru- 
sade of  the  English  manufacturers  in  other 
countries,  igi;  fulh'  adopted  by  England, 
193;  its  real  object  in  England,  198,  199; 
the  movement  a  "middle-class  agitation," 
204;  doctrine  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest, 
207,  788;  "the  wholesome  breezes  of  com- 
petition," 208;  industries  that  a  countr}'  is 
best  fitted  for  said  to  take  the  place  of 
others,  209;  the  "goods  for  goods"  theory, 
210,  316,  S12;  effect  on  labor  in  England,  212; 
aggressive  character  of  the  movement,  213; 
high  wages  and  cheap  production,  213;  Daily 
Times  on  what  it  meant  to  England,  224; 
effects  in  England,  225;  necessary  result  if 
made  universal,  230;  effect  on  silk  indus- 
try, 227-33;  on  cotton  industry,  233-52; 
on  woolen  industry,  252-57;  on  linen  in- 
dustry, 257-60;  on  jute  industry,  260-62; 
on  '  lace  industry,  262-63  ;  on  iron  and 
steel  industry,  264-74;  »"  chemical  in- 
dustry, 274-76;  on  paper  industry,  276-77; 
on  agriculture,  278-91;  on  general  trades, 
291-99;  imports  of  competing  commodities 
under,  304-05 ;  disadvantage  of  British 
laborers  under,  307-10;  growth  of  British 
foreign  trade  arrested  under,  312;  emi- 
gration of  artizans  under,  316;  adverse 
balance  of  trade  under,  317;  capital  with- 
drawn from  domestic  industries  anil  invested 
abroad,  319,  320;  Fallacies  exposed,  322,  323; 
unequal  distribution  of  wealth  under,  327, 
328,  329;  decline  of  producing  classes  under, 
329;  decline  of  wages  under,  330-65;  lack 
of  employment  under,  339-65;  classes  in- 
jured by,  366-67;  failure  in  England,  294, 
328;  adhered  to  by  a  majority  of  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Trade,  298;  condemned  by 
prominent  Englishmen,  300-02;  effect  on 
foreign  trade,  313;  legislation  for  the  con- 
sumer examined,  322-24;  fallacies  urged 
in  its  support,  374;  pernicious  influence 
on  the  wage-earners  of  England,  3S4; 
successful  campaign  in  Germany,  414; 
does  not  deserve  the  credit  of  early  eco- 
nomic refonns,  500;  causes  a  lowering  of  the 
quality  of  goods,  520;  list  of  commercial 
treaties,  559;  reaction,  561;  disastrous  effect 
in   the    United    States,    567,    609;    general 


effects,  614;  in  the  constitution  of  the  Con- 
federate States  of  America,  616;  Democratic 
tariff  plank  of  1892,  732;  definition  of  free 
trade,   781;  a  theory  based  on  assumption, 
786;  free  traders'  view  of  political  economy. 
7S7;  scientific  basis  of,  7S8,  7S9;  igie  "let  alone 
policy,"  789;  the  delusion  of  buying  in  the 
cheapest   market,   205,  811-14:   low  wages  a 
necessary  result  of,  815;  unavoidable  evils, 
817.     See  a/so  Protection. 
Free  Trade  Tariff,  defined,  7&1-S3. 
Freight,  tonnage  of  the  United  States  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  rest  of  the  world,  824. 
French,  B.  F.  ,  on  British  industrial  competi- 
tion, 6S9. 
Friends  of  National  Industry,  convention 

and  resolutions,  578. 
Furniture,  product  in  the  United  States,  700. 
Gallatin,  Albert,  on  the  value  of  a  home 

market,  574. 
Germ.\ny,  formation  of  the  Zollverein,  137. 
411;  competitions  with  England  in  paper 
making,  276-78;  growth  of  foreign  trade 
1854  to  1890,  312;  population  and  area,  404; 
coming  of  the  Huguenots,  404;  economic 
measures  of  Frederick  the  Great,  405;  exac- 
tions of  the  princes  on  commerce,  405; 
industrial  condition  at  the  close  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars,  406;  protection  adopted  by 
Prussia,  40S;  industrial  advancement  uiiikr 
protection,  412;  Cobden's  Continental  c.nii- 
paign,  414;  revival  of  protectionist  idi-as. 
417;  industrial  depression  in  1876,  4ii>; 
report  of  the  committee  on  the  financial 
condition  of  the  country,  422;  advancement 
under  the  protective  tariff  of  1S79,  425;  agri- 
•  culture  fostered,  426;  importance  of  her 
agriculture,  427,  429;  duffes  on  agricultural 
products,  427;  imports  of  bread  stuffs,  428; 
production  and  exports  of  farm  products, 
430;  manufacture  of  agricultural  machinery, 
431 ;  rise  of  the  beet-sugar  industry,  432,  447, 
450;  industrial  growth  under  protection, 
434-42;  prosperity  of  labor  under  protertii^i 
442-46;  foreign  trade  under  protecti. Ill  11^ 
50;  table  of  wages  paid  in  1882  ami  !>" 
446;  table  of  exports  and  imports  in  1  i:i, 
448;  technical  education,  450;  eiiurLs  to 
secure  foreign  trade,  451;  growth  of  capital, 
452;  increase  of  manufactures,  452;  statistics 
of  wages  in  1890,  719. 
GiBBiNS,  on  the  shipping  of  1"'    "         '  '■'; 

on  the  prosperity  of  the  I'l  1 

the  classes  of  English  pt :  n- 

Norman  Conquest,  38;  on  1-j'.  ni 

the  reign  of  Edward  III.,  42;  on  agricultuie  in 
F;ngland  during  the  eighteenth  century,  91. 
GiFFKN,  Robert,  statistics  of  incomes,  327; 
unreliability  of  his  w^age  statistics,  340-344; 
or  in  purchasing  power  of  earning,  344,  and 
in  increase  of  rent,  345  ;  evidence  before  La- 
bor Commission  on  Wages,  362;  statistics  of 
wages  in  English  woolen  mills,  254. 
Gladstone  William  E.,  on  protection  to 
agriculture,  164;  on  protective  character  of 
tariff  act  of  1S42,  164;  ou  what  articles  should 


be  protected,  178,  190;  completes  work  of 
Cobdeii  and  Peel,  190;  on  importance  of  cap- 
ital, 207;  on  who  pays  duty,  ,:;22, 

Glass  industry.  Uible  dF  tjiassware  exported 
from  riiitiil  Kin-'I.iiu,  3M.S;  -lowth  of  the 
indiisUN-  111  Ku^>ia,  475  ,  cniidition  in  United 
States  in  iSyo,  697-yy;  labor  cost  of  equal 
quantities  United  States  and  Belgium, 763-69. 

GODERICH,  Lord,  on  the  real  object  of  free 
trade  in  England,  igS. 

Gold,  discovery  in  California  and  Australia, 
216;  gold  and  silver  export  from  England 
prohtbited,  48;  England's  increased  supply 
(1850  to  1866)  from  Australia  and  California, 
216-217;  table  showing  exports  from  the 
United  States,  613;  drain  from  one  country 
to  another,  776,  777,  814;  yearly  production 
from  1492  to  1S05,  777;  table  of  exports  from 
and  imports  into  the  United  States,  S31-33. 

Gold-working.     St'e  Metal  Industries. 

Goods  for  Goods  Theory,  210,  316;  S12-13. 

Gorman,  Arthur  P.,  on  the  Democratic  tariff 
policy  in  1892,  732. 

Gorman-Wilson  Bill,  731-53. 

GORST,  John  E.  ,  on  the  condition  of  agricul- 
tural laborers  in  the  United  Kingdom,  383. 

Gowing,  Richard,  on  circumstances  that 
opposed  or  favored  the  Anti-Corn  Law 
League,  174. 

Granby,  Marquis  of,  an  able  defender  of 
protection,  1S2. 

Greeks,  ancient  commerce,  10. 

GbEELEV,  Horace,  on  hard  times  in  the  Uni- 
ted States  in  1855,  604. 

Greene,  J.  R.,  on  the  political  transformation 
caused  by  the  Danish  wars  in  England,  36. 

Gregg,  W.  R.,  urges  the  repeal  of  the  Corn 
Laws,  172. 

GribblE,  GEORGE,evidenceon  foreign  compe- 
tition with  England  in  textiles,  292. 

Grist  Mills,  product  in  United  States,  700. 

Guilds,  trade,  become  popular  in  Venice,  21; 
development  in  the  free  cities,  23;  origin  of 
merchant  guilds.  50;  nature  and  origin  of 
craft  guilds,  50;  need  of  protection,  51;  abuse 
of  the  system  in  England,  52;  restricted  by 
Parliament,  53;   receive  their  death  blow,  53. 

Gun  manufacture,  competition  of  protected 
countries  with  England,  291. 

GunTON,  George,  on  competition,  805;  advo- 
cates protection,  806. 

Hagan,  Philip,  evidence  on  the  labor  cost  of 
iron,  765. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  his  report  on  the 
encouragement  of  manufactures,  572. 

Hanna,  IJR.,  on  the  causes  of  the  panic  of 
1817  in  England,  132. 

Hanseatic  League,  formation,  23;  commer- 
cial importance,  24;  merchants  obtain  privi- 
leges in  London,  43;  privileges  extended, 
44;  exempted  from  restrictions  on  other 
aliens,  45. 

Hardware,  statistics  of  decline  in  prices 
under  protection,  710. 

Harriman,  D.  G.,  summary  of  the  McKinley 
act,  653. 


Harris,  William  J.,  evidence  on  the  de- 
creased agricultural  products  of  England 
under  free  trade,  287. 

Harrisburg  Convention,  584. 

Harrison,  Benjamin,  message  reviewing  the 
advance  of  American  industries  under  pro- 
tection, 730. 

Harrison,  Frederic,  on  English  pauperism, 
381. 

Harter,  M.  D.,  on  the  condition  of  England 
under  protection,  125;  opposition  to  protec- 
tion, 729. 

Hayes,  John  L.,  on  the  export  of  machinery 
from  England,  88. 

Hemp.     See  Fibre  Industries. 

Henry  IV.,  of  France,  features  of  his  reign. 
489. 

Hewitt,  Abram  S.,  on  the  labor  cost  of  iron 
products,  768. 

Historical  Method,  of  economic  discussion, 
785,  786. 

Hoar,  George  F.,  definition  of  protection, 
779- 

HoBBS,  F.  W..  statistics  of  wages  in  American 
and  European  worsted  mills,  681. 

HODGKIN,  T.,  on  the  early  condition  of  Ven- 
ice, 19. 

Holland,  adopts  protection,  138,  544;  growth 
of  foreign  trade,  1854  to  1890,  312;  signifi- 
cance of  foreign  investments,  319;  tariff 
revised,  .545;  statistics  of  foreign  trade,  546; 
statistics  of  wages  in  1890,  719.  See  also 
Dutch  and  Netherlands. 

Home  Market,  basis  of  the  American  system, 
568,  destruction  of,  by  Act  of  1833,  591,  592; 
how  built  up,  H.  C.  Carey  on,  598;  destroyed 
by  the  Act  of  1846,  604;  necessity  of  pre- 
serving and  increasing,  633,  635;  for  farm 
produce,  65S,  662;  nearness  of,  664;  decline 
of,  under  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  737,  745-54; 
magnitude  of,  in  United  States,  759-62; 
advantages  of,  procured  by  protection,  780; 
augmented  by  domestic  trade,  S21-24.  See 
Home  Trade. 

Home  Market  Bulletin,  on  rates  of  profit 
in  manufactures,  770. 

Home  Trade,  advantages  over  foreign  trade, 
4,  5,  6,  7;  neglect  of,  by  Romans,  15;  de- 
velopment of,  by  Venetians,  21,  22;  example 
of,  in  Western  Europe  during  Middle  Ages, 
33;  foreigners  monopolize  England's,  in 
fourteenth  century,  43;  expulsion  of  foreign- 
ers from  England's,  44,  45;  first  protection 
accorded  to,  in  England,  47-49;  influence  of 
trade  guilds  on,  61;  encouragement  of,  in 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  85; 
improved  condition  of  labor  in  England,  91; 
benefits  over  foreign  trade  in  certain  coun- 
tries, 140,  141;  diminished  under  free  trade 
in  England,  235-38,  279,  289;  of  Russia, 
483-85;  value  perceived  by  Gallatin,  574; 
need  of  its  development  in  the  United  States, 
633;  basis  of  industrial  prosperity  in  United 
States,  818-24;  benefits  illustrated,  821;  effect 
of  supplanting  by  foreign,  824. 

Hope,  George,  on  natural  protection,  171. 


Huguenots,  given  an  asj'lum  iu  England, 
66,  67;  dispersed  by  Louis  XIV.,  67;"  carry 
their  trades  into  Germany,  404;  persecution 
and  exodus,  493. 

HuRtBURT,  J.  Beaufort,  on  the  industrial 
future  of  Canada,  552. 

HusKissoN,  WiLLiAJi,  letter  on  the  home  pro- 
duction of  food-stuffs,  1 84;  on  "the  -whole- 
some breezes  of  competition,"  20S. 

Hutchinson,  J.  G.,  statistics  of  wages  in 
England,  340;  their  purchasing  power,  344. 

HuxLKv,  T.  H.,  on  the  struggle  for  existence 
as  modified  by  civilization,  791. 

Imports,  prohibited  in  England,  85;  bounties 
on  in  England,  87,  of  raw  cotton  into  Eng- 
land, 87;  into  Great  Britain  from  all  parts 
of  the  world  from  1697  to  1793,  94;  of  raw 
cotton  and  cotton  goods  into  Great  Britain 
from  1820  to  1859,  106;  of  wool  into  England 
1800  to  1S59,  109;  cf  flax  and  tow  into  Eng- 
land 1831  to  tS6o,  III;  of  raw  silk  into  Eng- 
land from  1820  to  i860,  112;  total  into  United 
Kingdom  from  1793  to  1859,  119:  Tooke  on 
policy  regarding,  139;  of  raw  silk  into  Eng- 
land 1S60,  1S70,  1S90,  228;  of  woolen  goods 
into  the  United  States  1885,  1889,  1S90,  257; 
of  linens  into  Great  Britain  1870  to  iSgo, 
258;  of  paper  into  England  i860  to  1890,  276; 
total  into  United  Kingdom  1836  to  1890,  304: 
increase  not  necessarily  a  sign  of  prosperitj-, 
306;  growth  of,  in  thirteen  principal  countries 
from  1854  to  1890,  312;  comparison  of,  be- 
tween United  States  and  United  Kingdom 
1874  and  1S92,  314;  of  United  Kingdom 
1864  to  1893,  317;  of  agricultural  products 
into  Great  Britain  1836  to  1890,  386;  of  fully 
manufactured  articles,  partially  manufac- 
tured articles,  raw  material  and  food  pro- 
ducts into  Great  Britain  1S36  to  1890,388-90, 
392-94;  of  wheat  and  rye  into  Germany 
in  1 891,  429;  of  sugar  into  Germauy  1880 
to     1890,     432;     into     Germany     1S72     to 

1890,  447;   into  German   customs   territory 

1891,  448;  of  raw  material  into  Gertnany 
1893,  450;  prohibited  in  Russia  1800,  455; 
into  Russia  1824  to  1849,  456;  of  raw  cotton 
into  Russia  decreasing,  462;  of  metal  goods 
into  Russia,  474;  total  into  Russia  1890-91, 
480;  into  France  1S20  to  1861,  512;  of  bull- 
ion into  France  1822  to  1829,  512;  of  raw 
cotton,  hemp,  flax  and  linen  yarns  into 
France  1820  to  1840,  514;  of  Italy  1890,  53S; 
of  Italy  from  United  States,  539;  into  Hol- 
land and  Belgium,  546;  into  Denmark,  549; 
into  Norway  and  Sweden,  550;  into  Spain 
and  Portugal,  551;  into  Asiatic  countries 
from  United  States,  551;  into  Africa  and 
Australasia  from  United  States,  552;  into 
Canada  1894,  555.  into  small  American 
countries  from  United  States,  556;  of  Ameri- 
can colonies  1771.  569;  into  United  States 
17S4  to  1790,  572;  into  United  States  1814  to 
1818,  577;  into  United  States  1841  to  1843, 
594;  into  United  States  from  1842  to  1S50, 
6oo;  into  United  States  from  1846  to  1S60, 
668;  into  United  States,  184S  to  1857,  613; 


of  rails  into  United  States,  1S67  to  1893,  620; 
of  wool  and  woolens  into  United  States, 
1883  and  1S89,  625;  of  certain  dutiable  articles 
into  United  States,  1889,  634;  various  restric- 
tions in  the  McKinley  act,  640;  of  tin  plate 
into  United  States,  1S91  and  1894,  644;  into 
United  States,  1892,  649;  of  shoddy  into 
United  States,  684;  into  United  States,  1892, 
1894,  1S95,  745,  840;  of  agricultural  products 
into  United  vStates,  1894,  1895,  748;  of  wheat 
into  England,  1892,  1893,  1894,  758;  of  agri- 
cultural products  into  England,  1894,  760; 
into  United  States,  1791  to  1895,  S28;  of  gold 
and  silver  into  United  States,  from  1S21  to 
1S95.  831. 

Improvements,  internal,  in  England,  89. 

Incidental  Protection,  defined,  784. 

INCLOSURE  of  land  in  England,  55;  effect  on 
labor,  55. 

Incomes,  of  English  people,  1799,  93;  '"  1S45, 
124;  in  1S48,  217;  of  buyers,  salesmen, 
cashiers  and  managers  of  English  business 
houses  reduced  under  free  trade,  240;  loss 
of,  by  English  farmers  and  land  owners 
under  free  trade,  283-8S;  of  producing  class 
diminished  under  free  trade  in  England, 
297;  unreliability  of  British  statistics  of, 
324-28;  of  capital,  trade  and  labor  in  Eng- 
land, 326-328;  of  English  labor,  how 
affected  b)'  a  slight  reduction  of  wages,  364; 
would  be  augmented  by  protection  in  Eng- 
land, 371;  increase  of,  under  protection,  780; 
spendable  basis  of  industrial  prosperity  of 
nations,  820-23. 

Income  Tax,  English,  imposed  in  1793,  93, 
163;  number  of  payers  in  England  in  1880, 
329;  of  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  740. 

India,  discovery  of  Cape  of.Good  Hope  route, 
22;  freedom  of  the  Portuguese  trade  from 
competition,  68. 

Industry,  three  chief  classes,  i;  limited  by 
natural  conditions,  2;  condition  during  the 
Dark  Ages,  13;  domestic,  effects  of  neglect- 
ing, 14;  a  test  of  civilization,  17;  immigration 
of  artisans  into  England  encouraged,  46,  66; 
condition  in  England  under  the  guilds,  51; 
independent  of  the  guilds,  52;  rise  of  capital- 
istic production  in  England,  54;  disorganized 
by  measures  of  Henry  the  Eighth's  reign.  55; 
effect  of  neglect,  57;  promoted  by  England, 
85;  influences  independent  of  protection  or 
free  trade,  129;  doctrine  of  preference  for 
what  a  country  is  best  adapted  for,  209; 
causes  which  accelerate  a  decline,  297;  non- 
protected, benefits  from  protection,  701; 
"  natural  "  and  "artificial,"  796,  802. 

Ingram,  John  K.,  on  the  tendency  of  the 
Physiocrats,  499. 

Inventions,  of  textile  machinery  in  England, 
eighteenth  century,  87;  effects  on  industry. 
87;  monopoly  of,  England,  88.    See  Patent's. 

Investments,  foreign,  evidence  of  decay,  319. 

Ireland,  industries  restricted  by  England, 
SSi  372;  statistics  of  occupations,  loi. 

Iron  and  Steel  Industry,  statistics  in  Eng- 
land,  218;   iron  output   of  the  wyrld,  266; 


So- 


British  suffers  from  foreign  tariffs  and 
free  trade,  264-74 ;  capacity  of  English 
mills,  273;  rates  of  wages,  333,  338,  341, 
720;  wages  in  the  United  States,  364;  de- 
velopment in  Russia, 472;  condition  in  United 
States  in  1S42  and  1S47,  597;  progress  in 
United  States,  6S9-93;  tables  showing  growth 
from  iS6oto  1890,  691;  labor  cost  in  United 
States  and  Europe,  765;  statistics  of  labor 
cost,  767-69.     See  Metal  Industries. 

Italian  cities,  rise  of  manufactures  and 
trade,  iS-22;  political  affairs,  536;  protection 
adopted,  537;  prosperit}-,  53S;  tables  of  for- 
eign trade,  53S;  of  agriculture,  540;  progress 
in  manufactures,  541;  statistics  of  wages, 
542;  progress  under  difficulties,  543. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  on  the  constitutionality 
of  protection  in  United  States,  587;  conces- 
sions to  the  Southern  free  traders,  589;  on  con- 
dition of  agriculture  in  United  States,  65S. 

Jewelry,  product  in  the  United  States,  700. 

Jones,  Benjamin,  on  the  wages  of  iron  found- 
ers under  free  trade,  341;  on  Mr.  Giffen's 
statistics  of  wages,  341-42. 

Journal  of  Commerce,  on  the  reduction  of 
wages  required  to  cheapen  goods,  814. 

Justice,  Bateman  &  Co.,  on  the  quality  of 
American  wool,  624. 

JtJTE.     See  Fibre  Industries. 

Jute  Industry,  decline  in  Great  Britain 
under  free  trade,  260-62. 

Kelley,  William  D.,  on  the  evils  of  the  tariff 
of  1846,  605. 

Knight,  Robert,  evidence  on  the  condition 
of  labor  in  boiler-making  and  iron  ship- 
building, 272. 

Knit  Goods,  dependeiit  on  protection  in  the 
United  States,  675;  labor  cost  in  the  United 
States  and  England,  764. 

KOLB,  G.  F.,  table  of  England's  foreign  loans 
during  the  Napoleonic  wars,  97. 

Labor,  exchange  for  commodities  fundamen- 
tal, and  employment  of,  a  prime  economic 
necessity,  i;  benefited  by  domestic  produc- 
tion, 4;  condition  of,  under  feudal  S3-steiu, 
36 -38;  disorganization  of,  in  England  during 
Middle  Ages,  55-5S;  lack  of  employment  for 
in  England  before  protective  policy  adopted, 
56-58;  enactments  for  its  benefit  in  Eng- 
land under  Elizabeth,  60;  well  occupied  in 
England  during  the  eighteenth  centurj-, 
90;  long  hours  in  Europe,  237,  240,  256, 
257,  293;  depression  in  boiler-making  and 
iron  ship-building  in  England,  272;  diffi- 
culty of  transfer  from  one  industry  to 
another,  294,  315;  decline  of  employment 
under  free  trade,  297,  339,  365;  economic 
value  of  shorter  hours  questioned,  29S;  Sir 
Edward  Sullivan  on  foreign  competition, 
307;  loss  of  employment  in  agriculture  under 
free  trade  in  England,  315;  royal  commis- 
sion of  1891  to  1S94,  347-61,  383-84;  the  un- 
employed "residuum,"  364;  duty  of  govern- 
ment to,  420;  advantages  under  protection  in 
Europe,  442-46,562;  increase  of,  under  pro- 
tection  in   German   Empire,   452;   table  of 


amount  required  to  produce  imports  of  the 
United  States,  634;  amount  required  to 
supply  the  United  States  with  tin  plate,  645; 
improved  condition  in  the  United  States 
under  the  McKinley  act,  652;  importation 
of  foreign  workmen,  687;  decrease  of  em- 
ployment under  the  Gorman-Wilson  tariff, 
749- 

Labor  cost  in  the  United  States  and  other 
countries,  763-69. 

Lace  curtain  manufacture,  under  a  high  and 
low  tariff,  676. 

Lace  industry,  decline  in  the  United  King- 
dom under  free  trade,  262. 

Lacey,  George,  on  unreliability  of  estimates 
on  English  economic  affairs,  327;  statistics  of 
concentration  of  wealth  in  England,  328. 

Lalssez  FAIRE,  origin  and  meaning  of  phrase, 
498;  source  of  doctrine  political,  499. 

Land  enclo.sures  under  Henrj'  Vlll.,  55;  en- 
closures limited,  65;  rents  advance,  65;  Eng- 
lish owners  intelligent  and  liberal,  16S; 
unpopular  with  the  masses,  169;  possible 
reform  in  land  tenures,  204;  large  holdings 
in  the  United  Kingdom,  327;  ownership  in 
Russia  478;  change  of  tenure  in  France 
effected  by  the  Revolution,  509. 

Larned,  J.  N. ,  on  the  commercial  promi- 
nence of  Antwerp,  26. 

Lauderdale,  Earl  of,  on  the  prosperity  of 
England  in  the  eighteenth  century,  92. 

Law,  John,  and  his  Mississippi  scheme,  494. 

Leader,  The,  on  cheap  men,  203. 

Leather  industry,  decline  in  England  under 
free  trade,  295;  growth  in  Russia,  467; 
product  in  the  United  States,  699. 

Levant  Company  formed.  70. 

Levi,  Leone,  on  the  difficulty  of  producing 
economic  statistics  in  England,  325. 

Liberty,  personal,  795;  civil,  its  limits,  79S; 
not  in  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  protec- 
tion, 705-801. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  on  home  trade,  81S. 

Linen  industry,  growth  in  the  United  King- 
dom under  protection,  no;  table  of  imports 
of  flax  and  exports  of  linen  goods,  in;  de- 
cline under  free  trade,  257-60;  wages  of 
women  in  British  mills,  358;  table  of  exports 
from  i860  to  1892,  396;  development  in  Ru.s- 
sia,  463;  need  of  protection  in  the  United 
States,  688. 

List,  Frederick,  on  adoption  of  protection  by 
Prussia,  136;  on  protective  policy,  583. 

London  Financial  News,  on  trade  between 
England  and  America  in  1895,  685. 

Lord,  George,  evidence  on  the  rise  of  cotton 
manufacturing  in  Asia,  236. 

Lord,  William  Wiley,  evidence  on  the  de- 
cline of  gun-making  in  England,  291. 

Louis  XIV.,  of  France,  dominating  character, 
491;  persecution  of  the  Huguenots,  492. 

Louis  XV.,  of  France,  accession,  494;  dis- 
asters of  his  reign,  495. 

Lumber,  product  in  the  United  States,  700. 

McCarthy,  Justin,  on  Disraeli's  criticism  of 
Peel,  181. 


858 


McCuLLOCH,  J.  R.,  on  the  commerce  of  the 
Venetians,  20;  on  Portugal's  freedom  from 
competition  in  the  East  India  trade,  68;  on 
the  charter  of  the  English  East  India  Com- 
pany, 70;  statistics  of  the  English  cotton  in- 
dustry, 105;  on  the  progress  of  the  metal 
industries  in  England,  113;  statistics  of 
England's  foreign  trade,  119;  on  decline  in 
prices,  122;  on  the  industrial  supremacy  at- 
tained by  England,  143;  on  the  impotence  of 
industrial  rivals  of  England,  144. 

Macdonell,  H.  D.,  report  on  the  decrease  of 
British  trade  in  Germany,  440,  441. 

McDuFFlE,  George,  leader  of  South  Carolina 
free  traders,  587-SS;  on  State  sovereignty, 
591- 

Macgregor,  John,  account  of  the  war  be- 
tween England  and  Holland,  75-77;  state- 
ment of  Board  of  Trade  report  in  1732,  83; 
on  the  significance  of  foreign  investments, 
319;  on  rates  of  dut}'  under  the  ZoUverein, 
412;  basis  of  French  tariff  of  1791,  505. 

Machinery,  important  aid  to  English  indus- 
try, 87,  107;  export  from  England  pro- 
hibited, 88;  period  of  rapid  introduction  in 
England,  127;  industrial  effects,  127;  has 
caused  glut  in  markets,  366 ;  growth  of 
manufacture  in  Russia,  474;  American  in 
European  knitting  mills,  676;  progress  in 
silk-looms,  686;  production  in  the  United 
States  in  1S60  and  1890,  694. 

McKlNLEY  Bill,  631-54;  progress  under, 
730,  731- 

McKinley,  William,  on  responsibility  of 
United  States  Senate  for  tariff  of  1883,  626; 
on  McKinley  bill,  640-42. 

Madison,  James,  on  the  importance  of  pro- 
moting manufactures,  574. 

MaleT,  E.  B.,  on  the  rise  of  wages  under  pro- 
tection in  Germany,  445. 

Malkin,  Peter,  evidence  on  the  decline  of 
the  English  silk  industry,  229,  230. 

Malthus,  Thomas  Robert,  his  theorj'  of 
population,  792-94. 

Manchester  School,  cold-blooded  policy, 
419. 

Manor,  English,  36,  37. 

Manufactures,  not  limited  by  nature,  2;  in- 
troduced into  England  by  Edward  III.,  46; 
advantages  as  national  industries,  211;  trans- 
fer of  plants  to  protected  countries,  263; 
tables  of  imports  into  United  Kingdom,  3S8- 
91 ;  statistics  of  exports  from  United  King- 
dom, 396-403;  condition  in  United  States  in 
1840,  1850  and  i860,  611;  table  showing 
growth  in  United  States  1880-90,  628-30; 
from  1S60  to  1S90,  704-7;  rates  of  profit,  770. 

"Mark,"  Anglo-Saxon,  36. 

Markets,  neutral,  protectionist  countries 
strong  in,  241. 

Markets  of  the  World,  being  closed  to 
British  manufacturers,  232,  235-78;  struggle 
of  Gennans  to  acquire,  451 ;  Continental  com- 
petitors in,  563;  total  value  of,  758;  struggle 
for,  759;  competition  in  agricultural  produce 
in,  75S,  760,  761;  United  States  can  only  sell 


in,  by  means  of  low  wages  and  cheap  goods, 
811-817, 

Mason,  David  H.,  on  free  trade  in  the  United 
States  under  the  Confederation,  568. 

Mason,  Frank  H.,  on  German  import  duties, 
427;  on  American  wheat  in  Germany,  428. 

Mawdsley,  James,  evidence  on  cheapness 
due  to  long  hours  of  labor,  241;  minority  re- 
port of  British  Labor  Commission,  1S94,  3S3. 

Mazarin,  Cardinal,  pohcy,  491. 

Medley,  George  W.,  on  the  benefit  to  Eng- 
land of  universal  free  trade,  727. 

Mercantile  System,  nature  of,  775. 

Metal  industries,  growth  in  England  under 
protection,  113;  table  of  exports  of  metal 
goods,  114;  decline  under  free  trade,  264-73; 
table  of  metal  goods  exported  from  the 
United  Kingdom,  398;  growth  in  Russia, 
470-75- 

Milan,  manufactures,  22. 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  wages  of  laborers,  natur- 
allv  low,  806. 

Mills  Bill,  627. 

Mills,  Roger  Q.  ,  free  trade  views,  728;  on  the 
Democratic  tariff  policy,  742;  on  the  alleged 
benefits  of  free  trade,  743;  on  the  workman's 
share  of  protection,  766. 

Mining,  not  limited  by  climate,  3;  in  Russia, 
statistics,  477;  products  in  United  States, 
1 860- 1 890,  631. 

Mining  record,  statistics  of  the  English  iron 
industry,  218. 

Mississippi  scheme,  494. 

Mitchell,  Henry',  evidence  on  the  decline 
of  England's  exports  of  woolens,  253;  evi- 
dence on  wages  as  an  element  in  cost  of  pro- 
duction, 256;  on  the  influence  of  duties  on 
foreign  trade,  256;  on  tUe  competition  of 
France  in  the  woolen  industry,  257;  on  the 
importation  of  agricultural  products,  290. 

Molesworth,  William,  on  abuses  of  the 
English  Poor  Laws,  376;  on  the  Poor  Law 
reform  in  1834,  377. 

Monasteries,  effect  of  confiscation  of  prop- 
erty of,  on  labor,  55. 

Money,  fiat  in  France,  494;  paper,  issue  of 
1S60  in  the  United  States  at  a  discount,  607. 

Mongredien,  Augustus,  on  the  prosperity 
of  England  under  protection,  124;  on  alleged 
crudities  in  the  English  tariff,  151;  on  the 
attitude  of  English  manufacturers  toward 
protection,  156;  on  foreign  commerce  under 
free  trade,  313;  on  the  fall  of  wages  under 
free  trade  in  England,  816. 

Monopolies,  granted  in  England,  86;  not  fos- 
tered by  protection,  523;  what  they  are,  775. 

Moon,  Charles,  letter  on  the  decline  of 
woolen  yarn  spinning  under  free  trade,  293. 

Moors,  expulsion  of  from  Granada.  29. 

Morris,  George,  letter  on  the  decline  of  the 
English  cotton  trade,  and  reduction  of  in- 
comes under  free  trade,  240. 

Morse,  Arthur,  on  the  influence  of  free  trade 
on  the  price  of  corn,  171. 

Mortgages  on  farms  in  the  United  States, 
665-70;  on  real  estate  in  England,  670. 


MULHAi.1.,  M.  G.,  diagram  sbowiug  fluctua- 
tions in  prices  of  English  products,  :2i. 

MuLi-KR,  Henry  L.,  evidence  on  the  dechne 
of  gun  making  in  England,  291. 

MuLVANY,  Consul,  report  on  the  decrease  of 
British  trade  in  Germany,  438;  on  the  rise 
of  wages  in  Germany,  444. 

Napoleon,  Continental  system,  505. 

Napoleonic  wars,  79,  97,  130,  505,  506. 

Natural  Capabilities,  of  England,  Cuba 
and  the  United  States,  influences  on  branches 
to  be  pursued,  139-43. 

Natural  Laws  governing,  2,  S02-04. 

Natural  Sklrction,  law  of  basis  of  doctrine 
of  free  ir:idc,  7SS;  not  the  best  means  of 
secu'-iiiu  itiilustrial  development,  7S9-92. 

Navigai  I'  'N  Acts,  England's  first,  47;  act  of 
165 1,  75;  various  provisions,  77,   82. 

Navy,  English,  enrollment  of  reserves,  86. 

Nesselrode,  Count,  on  the  adoption  of  pro- 
tection by  Russia,  137. 

Netherlands,  contrast  between  the  southern 
and  northern  parts,  25;  height  of  their  pros- 
peritv,  26;  early  commercial  history,  543. 
See  a/so  Belgium  and  Holland. 

Newmarch,  on  circumstances  promoting  Eng- 
lish trade,  223. 

New  York  Commercial  Bulletin  on  the 
efifect  of  a  low  tariff'  on  wages  in  1893,  735; 
on  necessitv  of  reducing  wages  uuder  Gor- 
man-Wilson Bill,  S15. 

Norman  Conquest,  37,  38. 

NoRW.\Y,  growth  of  foreign  trade  1854  to  1S90, 
312;  industrial  condition,  549. 

OCEANICA,  statistics  of  trade  with,  552. 

Oi'PENheimer,  Consul-General,  on  decrease 
of  British  trade  in  Germany,  43S. 

Over-production,  366. 

Paper  industry,  decline  under  free  trade, 
276-78;  decline  in  England  due  to  foreign 
competition,  293;  development  in  Russia,  467. 

Parliamentary  Commission  on  Labor  mi- 
nority report,  3S3. 

Patents,  many  issued  in  the  United  States 
under  protection,  612. 

Pauperism  in  England  in  reign  of  Henry  VIH, 
55;  in  reign  of  Elizabeth,  56;  Poor  Laws  of 
Elizabeth's  reign,  63;  alleged  decrease  in 
England,  375;  encouraged  by  a  system  of 
relief,  376;  in  Europe,  statistics,  380;  charac- 
ter and  extent  in  England,  381,  384. 

Pearl  Buttons,  prices  before  and  under  the 
McKinley  act,  702. 

Pearson,  Richard,  on  free  trade  in  velvets, 
687. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  introduces  a  revision  of 
Corn  Laws,  162;  introduces  an  income  tax, 
163;  and  a  revision  of  tariif,  163;  announces 
a  change  of  views  on  protection,  177;  his 
desertion  of  the  protection  party,  181;  on  the 
superiority  of  England  in  manufactures,  186; 
on  importance  of  capital,  207. . 

Percentages,  comparison  of,  misleading,  611; 
fallacy  of  comparing  in  labor  cost,  766. 

Petroleum  Industry,  growth  in  Russia,  476. 

Phoenicians,  ancient  commerce,  9. 


Physiocrats,  origin,  498;  errors,  499. 

Pitkin,  on  the  protective  views  of  early 
American  statesmen,  571. 

Pitt,  William,  on  the  causes  of  England's 
prosperity,  92;  computation  of  Enghsh  in- 
comes in  1799,  93. 

Platform,  of  Democratic  party,  1S4S,  603;  in 
1856,  605;  of  Republican  party  in  i860,  616; 
of  Democratic  party  in  1892,  732. 

Playfair,  Sir  Lyon,  on  the  failure  of  free 
trade,  250. 

Plumb,  Senator,  on  the  partisan  character  of 
the  Mills  bill,  627. 

Political  e;conomist,  chief  contents,  5S0. 

Political  Economy,  defined,  787. 

Polk.  James  K.,  disingenuousness  on  the 
tariff',  505;  declaration  in  first  message,  599. 

Poole,  R.  S.,  on  the  loss  to  France  from  the 
exodus  of  the  Huguenots,  493. 

Poor  Laws,  English,  of  Elizabeth,  63,  64; 
recent,  375-79- 

Porter,  G.  R.,  on  import  of  wheat  into  Eng- 
land, 104;  on  decline  in  value  of  cottons  in 
England,  107;  on  progress  of  England  under 
protection,  125;  on  English  exports  to  United 
States  in  1815,  135;  on  England's  industrial 
supremacy,  145;  on  failure  of  English  efforts 
for  universal  free  trade,  147;  .statistics  of  Eng- 
lish revenue  from  duties  in  1S42,  165;  in 
1849,  ^66;  on  English  duty  on  silks,  227. 

Porter,  Robert  P.,  on  the  magnitude  of  the 
English  woolen  industry,  255;  on  farm  mort- 
gages in  the  United  States,  667;  on  improve- 
ment in  silk  machinery,  686. 

Portugal  begins  the  Eastern  trade,  28;  adopts 
protection,  138;  growth  of  foreign  trade  1S54 
to  1870,  312;  industrial  condition,  550. 

Pottery,  table  of  exports  from  England  from 
i860  to  1892,  398;  growth  of  the  industry  in 
Russia,  475;  progress  in  the  United  States, 
695-97- 

Price,  Bonamy,  on  "goods  for  goods"  theory, 
210;  on  working  man's  protection,  298;  doc- 
trine of  free  trade  on  wages  stated  by,  398. 

Prices,  decline  of  in  England  from  1819  to 
1845,  121,  122;  ultimately  reduced  by  protec- 
tion, 265;  reduction  in  Canada,  554;  in  the 
United  States,  703;  tables  showing  this  de- 
crease, 70S-12;  not  necessarily  raised  by  the 
amount  of  duties.  772. 

Production,  chief  branches  of,  i. 

Profits,  evidence  of  British  manufacturers  on 
loss  of,  in  productive  industry  under  free 
competition,  229-99;  of  manufacturers  of. 
New  England,  770;  competition  in  capital 
prevents  excessive,  771. 

Protection,  field  of  controversy  with  free 
trade,  3-7;  form  enjoyed  by  the  ancient  com- 
mercial nations,  15;  the  policy  in  Venice,  21; 
in  the  free  cities  of  Europe,  23;  not  needed 
by  the  Dutch  and  Flemmings,  31;  adopted 
by  them  after  the  Napoleonic  wars,  31; 
necessary  to  the  Venetians  from  the  first,  32; 
value  taught  by  the  history  of  Western 
Europe,  ^3;  introduced  into  England  by 
Edward    HL,  46;     England    prohibits    the 


importing  of  silk  goods  and  other  manufac- 
tures, 48;  extended  to  agriculture,  48; 
value  to  English  industries,  49,  57,  62, 
98,  loS;  under  Queen  Elizabeth,  to  manu- 
factures, agriculture  and  shipping,  64-66; 
abandonment  in  England  follows  years  of 
bad  crops,  12S;  eflect  on  England  of  this 
polic\'  in  other  countries,  128,  14.5;  adopted 
by  Prussia,  136  ;  tariffs  of  the  United  States, 
137;  the  German  Zollverein,  137;  protection 
in  Russia,  137;  in  Belgium,  Holland,  Spain 
and  Portugal,  138;  advisability  depends  on 
the  economic  situation  of  a  nation,  140;  out- 
grown by  England,  143;  proof  of  its  value, 
143;  English  efforts  to  remove  it  in  other 
countries,  146;  continued  in  England  until 
1846,  14S-52  ;  opposed  to  duties  on  non- 
competing  raw  materials,  154;  three  divisions 
of  the  policy,  155;  in  other  countries  a  men- 
ace to  Great  Britain,  158;  Cobdeu  on  natural 
protection,  172;  how  far  favored  by  Peel  and 
Gladstone,  164,  178;  speeches  by  Disraeli, 
Bentinck,  Lord  Granb\',  Lord  Derby,  oppos- 
ing the  repeal  of,  iSi-84  ;  evidence  of  Brit- 
ish manufacturers  on  the  restriction  of  their 
trade  by  foreign  tariffs,  229-7S;  reduces 
prices  ultimately,  265,  771-73;  secures  home 
markets  for  chemical  manufactures,  276; 
the  remedy  for  foreign  competition  in  paper 
making,  277;  recommended  by  a  minority 
of  the  Royal  Commission,  29S;  adverse 
interests  built  up  in  England,  366;  would 
improve  the  home  market,  366;  growth  of 
favorable  sentiment  in  England,  367;  devel- 
opment in  Germany,  404;  effects  on  German 
industries,  412,  434;  revival  in  Germany, 
422,  425;  adopted  in  Russia,  455;  effects  in 
Russia,  486;  adopted  in  France,  492;  bene- 
(iis  to  French  industries,  503,  509;  influence 
on  agriculture  in  France,  510;  on  the  textile 
industries  of  France,  510-12;  how  long 
needed,  522;  alleged  production  of  monop- 
olies, 523;  practiced  in  Austria-Hungary,  533; 
in  Italy,  537;  Belgium,  545;  Switzerland,  548; 
in  Denmark,  548;  Norway  and  Sweden,  549; 
in  Spain  and  Portugal,  550;  summary  of 
results,  557;  productive  power  of  Europe, 
563;  growth  of  sentiment  in  the  United 
States,  577;  good  effects  in  the  United 
States,  586,  718;  constitutionality,  587;  H. 
C.  Carey  on  the  benefits  of  domestic  manu- 
factures, 598;  stimulating  to  invention,  612; 
admits  most  non-competing  products  free, 
619;  still  needed  by  the  United  States,  631, 
637-39;  benefits  the  so-called  non-protected 
industries,  701;  breaks  down  monopolies, 
714;  increases  wages,  715;  its  nature  and 
principles,  774;  natural  and  legal  protection 
defined,  779;  involves  no  injustice,  783;  in- 
cidental protection  illusory,  784;  based  on 
historical  study  in  the  United  States,  7S5; 
protectionists'  view  of  political  economy, 
787;  scientific  basis,  790;  deals  with  the  real 
man,  795;  allows  the  utmost  freedom  to  the 
individual,  797;  a  matter  of  public  policy, 
800;  chief  purpose  to  prevent  reduction  of 


wages,  803;  advantages  in  Europe,  80S;  pre- 
serves opportunities  for  employment,  810. 

Protective  Tariff,  defined,  779-83, 

Prussia,  adopts  protection,  408;  forms  the  Zoll- 
verein,411;  wars  with  Austria  and  France, 416. 

Prussia  Eastland  Company,  English, 
formed,  71. 

Publishing  Business,  progress  in  the  United 
States,  701. 

Railroads  promote  the  English  iron  indus- 
try, 21S,  219;  miles  in  operation  in  1866, 
220;  wages  of  employes  in  Scotland  and  the 
United  States,  692;  wages  in  England  in 
1891  and  1S92,  720. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  report  on  England's 
foreign  trade  in  1604,  71. 

Ramie.     See  Fibre  Industries. 

Rawlinson,  Joshua,  evidence  on  the  decline 
of  the  English  cotton  industry,  243, 

Kavj  material,  free  entry  of  foreign  in  har- 
mony with  protection,  31;  English  revenue 
duties,  153;  English  resources,  155;  to  fur- 
nish profits  to  England,  205;  table  of  imports 
into  United  Kingdom,  392;  dutiable  under 
tariff  of  1S46  in  United  States,  601;  draw- 
back increased  by  the  McKinley  act,  641; 
definition  of  and  argument  concerning, 
754-57- 

Raymond,  A.  C,  evidence  on  the  labor  cost 
of  buttons,  765. 

Rayxor.  Isidor.  free  trade  \'iews,  729, 

Readf,  R.  H.,  evidence  on  the  decline  of  the 
British  linen  industry,  258. 

Receipts,  of  United  kingdom,  1894,  195-97; 
of  United  States,  1789  to  1895,  834. 

Reciprocity,  recommended  by  merchants  of 
London  in  1820,  147;  between  England  and 
France,  193,  215,  501-04-;  a  merchant's  ad- 
vocacy, 240;  under  McKinley  act,  646-51. 

Redgrave,  Alexander,  gives  statistics  of 
the  texrile  industries  of  England,  220;  of  the 
cotton  industry  of  Europe,  221. 

Reed,  Thomas  B  ,  on  the  nature  and  princi- 
ples of  protection,  774;  on  wages  under 
protection,  8 10, 

Rents  of  laborers'  dwellings  increased,  345. 

Republican  Party,  declares  for  protection 
in  i860,  616;  tariff  legislation  of,  from  iS6i 
to  1S90,  616-56;  return  to  power  in  1S88, 
630,  729;  enacts  McKinley  bill,  640;  defeated 
by  deceptive  tactics  of  free  traders  in  1892, 
732-35;  carrs-  elections  throughout  the  coun- 
try in  1894  and  1S95,  754. 

Revenue,  from  customs  duties  in  England, 
1842,165-66;  1859,191-92;  1894,195;  in  United 
States,  deficiencv  of,  under  Act  of  1833,  593; 
under  Walker  tariff,  600;  under  Act  of  1S57, 
607,  612;  under  Gorman-Wilson  bill,  752;  of 
United  States,  from  17S9  to  1895,  S34. 

Revenue  Tariff.  Sec  Tariff  for  Revenue 
Only. 

Revenue  System,  disctissed,  782-S4. 

RiCARDO,  David,  on  the  tendency  of  wages  to 
reduction,  807. 

Richardson,  evidence  on  the  decline  of 
British  exports  of  linens,  259. 


-Richelieu,  Cardinal,  despotic  administration, 
491. 

RiGG,  SiSBON  S.,  statistical  analysis  of  the 
English  cotton  trade,  245-50. 

Rogers,  Thorold,  on  the  supremacy  of  Eng- 
land after  the  Napoleonic  wars,  131. 

Romans,  ancient  commerce,  11-13;  fatal 
change  of  economic  polic}-,  15. 

Rdvai,  Commission,  on  the  Depression  in 
Trade,  in  England,  (1SS5)  under  free  trade, 
appointed,  273;  extracts  from,  evidence 
before,  on  decline  of  British  industries,  229- 
95;  extracts  from  reports  of,  296-9S;  oppo- 
sition to  its  investigating  effects  of  free  trade, 
299;  report  on  unemployed,  315;  report  of 
labor  organizations  to  a  reduction  of  wages, 
332-39 :  insufficiency  of  emplo^-ment  of 
labor,  minority  report  on,  339  ;  capital  may- 
lose  all  inducements  for  investment  in  Eng- 
land, 367. 

Royal  Commission  on  Labor,  appointed  by 
parliament  in  1891,  347;  extracts  from 
reports  on  wages  in  England  in  1892,  34S, 
350,  361;  minority  report  on  pauperism, 
housing,  unemployed,  and  deplorable  con- 
dition of  English  masses,  383,  384. 

Rubber  goods,  growth  of  the  manufacture  in 
Russia,  46S. 

Russia,  adherence  to  protection,  137;  eco- 
nomic conditions,  141;  supplies  agricultural 
products  to  Gennany,  growth  of  foreign 
trade,  1854  to  1890,  312;  42S,  429;  advantages 
of  situation,  454;  manufactures  encouraged 
by  Peter  the  Great,  454;  history  of  her  tariff, 
455-60;  table  of  foreign  trade  from  1824  to 
1849,  456;  growth  of  manufactures,  458; 
advance  under  a  high  tariff,  459-61;  table  of 
manufactories,  461 ;  growth  of  the  cotton 
industry,  461-63;  development  of  flax, 
hemp  and  jute  manufactures.  463;  of  woolen 
manufactures,  465;  of  the  silk  industry,  466; 
of  the  paper  industry,  467;  of  the  leather 
goods  manufacture,  467;  of  the  rubber  goods 
manufacture,  46S;  of  the  wood-working  in- 
dustries, 469;  of  pitch  and  tar  making,  470; 
0[  the  metal  working  industries,  470-75;  tool 
and  machine  making  sacrificed  to  other 
industries,  474;  growth  of  the  glassware 
and  pottery  industries,  475;  of  chemical 
manufactures,  476;  of  the  petroleum  indus- 
try, 476;  of  cement  industry,  476;  of  beet 
sugar  industry,  477;  statistics  of  mining,  477; 
condition  of  agriculture,  478;  ownership 
of  land,  47S;  statistics  of  stock-raising,  479; 
fisheries,  480;  table  of  irhports  and  exports 
in  1890  and  1891,  480-83;  internal  trade,  483- 
85;  fairs,  484;  condition  of  labor,  4S5;  table 
of  wages  in  factories,  485;  effects  of  pro- 
tection, 486;  statistics  of  wages  in  1890, 
719. 

Russian  Company,  EngHsh,  formed,  71. 

St.  Ferrol,  on  the  treaty  of  17S6  between 
England  and  France,  504. 

Salisbury,  Lord,  on  struggle  for  markets,  759. 

Sanford,  Arnold  O.,  evidence  on  the  labor 
cost  of  cotton  yarns,  764. 


Savings,  in  Germany,  452;  in  Italy,  538;  in- 
crease in  United  States  during  Civil  War, 
617;  from  1S60  to  1S90,  631. 

ScHULZE,  William,  evidence  on  foreign  com- 
petition shielded  by  protection,  241. 

Scientific  basis  of  protection  and  free  trade 
discussed,  788-94. 

Scott,  Charles,  report  to  British  Govern- 
ment, on  German  trade  under  protection, 
434,  435- 

Sheffield  Daily  Telegram,  on  Mr.  Giffen's 
statistics  of  wages,  343. 

Ship-building,  bounties  granted  by  England, 
S6;  table  of  artisans'  wages  in  England,  350; 
condition  in  the  United  States  in  1842  and 
1848,  597. 

Shoddy,  imports  into  the  United  States  from 
1890  to  1895,  684;  imports  before  and  under 
the  Gorman- Wilson  tariff,  747. 

Silk  industry,  decline  in  England,  22S-33; 
foreign  competition  with  England,  292;  table 
of  exports  of  silk  goods,  396;  development 
in  Russia,  466;  under  protection  in  France, 
510;  growth  in  the  United  States,  6S5. 

Silver.     See  Gold  and  Silver. 

Silver-working.     See  Metal  Industries. 

SiMCOX,  Edith,  on  the  rents  paid  by  the 
working  classes  in  England,  345 

Smith,  Adam,  on  the  benefits  of  home  trade, 
4,  819. 

Society,  its  benefits  and  requirements,  799. 

Spain,  injured  by  disregard  of  domestic  in- 
dustries, 29;  increases  import  duties,  138; 
growth  of  foreign  trade,  1854  to  1890,  312; 
industrial  condition,  550. 

Specie  p.^yments,  effect  of  sudden  resump 
tion  in  England,  132. 

Specific  duties,  advantages,  262,  263;  supe- 
rior to  ad  valorem.  410. 

"Statute  of  Apprentices,"  60-63. 

Steel.     See  Iron  and  Steel. 

Steel,  quality'  of  goods  lowered  by  competi- 
tion, 272. 

Steel  rails,  manufacture  depressed  in  Shef- 
field, 267;  English  kept  out  of  the  United 
States  only  by  high  duty,  26S;  European  in- 
ternational trust,  269;  statistics  of  produc- 
tion and  imports  of  United  States,  620. 

Sterling,  W.  R.,  on  wages  in  the  iron  and 
steel,  railroad,  and  mining  industries,  692. 

STOCKRAISING  in  Russia,  statistics,  479. 

Sugar  industry,  beet  sugar  in  Germany,  432, 
447)  450;  condition  in  the  United  States  in 
1841  and  184S,  597;  bounty  in  the  United 
States  under  the  McKinley  act,  642.  See 
Beet  Sugar  Industry,. 

SuLLiV-iN,  Sir  Edward,  on  foreign  competi- 
tion with  English  labor,  307;  on  the  proba- 
bility of  England  returning  to  protection, 
370-72. 

Sully,  Due  de,  economic  policy,  490. 

Sumner,  W.  G  ,  defines  free  trade,  781. 

Survival  of  the  Fittest,  law  of,  its  relation 
to  economics,  207,  7S8-94. 

Sweden,  industrial  condition,  growth  of  for- 
eign trade,  1854  to  1890,  312,  549, 


Switzerland,  industrial  condition,  547;  statis- 
tics of  wages  in  1890,  719 

Syme,  David,  on  the  effect  of  competition  on 
prices,  713. 

Taine,  H.  a.,  on  the  economic  condition  of 
trance  before  the  Revolution,  495. 

Tammany  Society,  on  the  commercial  de- 
pression under  the  tariff  of  1816,  577. 

Tariff,  of  Great  Britain,  in  1S94,  193-95;  in 
United  States,  Act  of  17S9,  576;  of  1816, 
577;  of  1824,  585;  of  1828,  585;  Compromise 
Act  of  1833,  590;  of  1S42,  593;  of  1846,  600; 
of  1.S57,  605:  Morrill  tariff  of  1861,  616;  of 
1S67,  618;  of  1872,  620;  of  1883,  623-26;  Mc- 
Kinley  bill  of  1890,  640,  654;  Gorman-Wilson 
bill  of  1894,  741-53;  table  of  all  United 
States  tariffs  from  1789  to  1894,  664-66. 

Tariff  for  Revenue  Only  defined,  782,  783. 

Taussig,  F.  W.,  on  the  cause  of  the  panic  of 
1857,  612. 

Taxes,  paid  in  wool  in  England,  42;  taxation 
in  France  before  the  Revolution,  496. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  on  protection,  603. 

Tariff,  is  it  a  tax?  771. 

Tariff  Reform  a  misleading  term,  785. 

Tenants,  free,  number  and  position  in  Eng- 
land after  the  Norman  Conquest,  38;  rights 
and  privileges,  40. 

Thiers,  L.  A.,  on  the  protective  policy, 
517-24- 

Thompson,  Col.  Perronet,  on  the  free  im- 
portation of  food-stuffs,  180. 

Thompson,  Robert  Ellis,  on  the  ideas  of  the 
Physiocrats,  49S. 

Thompson,  R.  W.,  on  the  constitutionality 
of  protection  in  the  United  States,  571;  on 
excessive  importation,  609. 

TiBBiTTS,  John  A.,  on  wages  in  English 
woolen  mills,  355. 

Times,  The,  on  the  funds  of  the  Anti-Corn 
Law  League,  176;  on  the  Marquis  of  Graii- 
by's  support  of  protection,  182;  on  the  inva- 
sion of  the  United  States  b)^  the  Cobden 
Club,  722. 

Tin  pl.^TE,  British  manufacturers  of,  to  hold 
American  market  by  reducing  wages,  321; 
tariff  and  industrial  history  in  the  United 
States,  643-46. 

Tobacco  Manufacture  product  in  the 
United  States,  700. 

TooKE,  Thomas,  author  of  an  English  peti- 
tion for  free  trade,  139. 

Towns,   English,  origin  and  progress,  38. 

Townships,  English,  36-37. 

Trade,  general  divisions,  3.  See  Foreign  Trade 
and  Domestic  Trade. 

Treaties,  free  trade  advanced  by,  559.  See 
Reciprocity. 

Trollope,  Mrs.  Frances,  on  the  real  object 
of  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  199. 

Turcot,  A.  R.  J.,  attempts  many  reforms,  500. 

TwEMLOW,  James,  evidence  on  the  decline  of 
the  English  silk  industry,  231. 

Umbrellas,  product  in  the  United  States,  700. 

Umpire,  The,  on  low  wages  under  free  trade, 
233- 


United  States,  competition  of  England  in 
manufactures,  134;  tariffs  from  1S16-46,  137; 
economic  conditions,  141;  raw  materials 
taxed  only  for  revenue,  154;  Cobden  on 
American  wheat,  172;  largest  market  for  the 
Scotch  jute  manufacture,  261 ;  English  steel 
manufactures  kept  out  only  by  high  duties. 
268,  270;  competition  with  England  in  gun- 
making,  292;  successful  competition  with 
the  English  watch  industry,  294;  with  the 
trades  of  Sheffield,  295;  statistics,  of  gro\\-th 
of  foreign  trade,  1854  to  1890,  312,  314; 
reason  for  the  return  of  securities  from 
England,  318;  rise  of  wages,  363;  American 
grain  in  Germany,  42S;  not  much  market 
for  wheat  in  France,  531;  small  market 
in  Austria-Hungary,  536;  statistics  of  trade 
with  Italy,  539;  small  market  in  Holland 
and  Belgium,  547;  in  Switzerland,  54S;  in 
Denmark,  549;  in  Norway  and  Sweden, 
550;  in  Spain  and  Portugal,  551;  statistics 
of  trade  with  Asia,  551;  with  Africa,  552; 
with  Oceanica,  552;  trade  with  Canada,  555; 
with  other  American  countries,  556;  man- 
ufactures repressed  by  England  in  colonial 
times,  564;  customs  regulations  of  tlie  several 
States,  566;  agriculture  the  chief  industry  at 
the  close  of  the  Revolution,  56/ ;  effect  of  free 
trade  under  the  Confederation,  567;  protec- 
tion an  object  of  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion, 568-70;  constitutionalit}- of  protection, 
568-71;  first  tariff  bill  passed,  569;  opinions 
of  the  early  presidents  on  protection,  570; 
early  tariff'  hi.story,  572;  manufactures  in 
iSio,  573;  tariff  of  1816,  575;  commercial 
hostility  of  England,  576;  tariff  of  1816  in- 
adequate, 577;  tariff  lite;:ature  of  1827,  582; 
tariff  bill  of  1820,  578-80;  tariff  of  1824  en- 
acted, 580;  effects,  585;  tariff  of  1828,  585; 
statistics  of  production  in  1831,  586;  modifv- 
ing  tariff  bill  of  1832,  586,  58S;  agitation  of 
the  Southern  free  traders,  588;  nullification, 
588;  tariff  of  1833  and  its  effects,  590-93; 
distress  during  Tyler's  administration,  593; 
tariff  of  1842,  593;  its  effect  on  revenue  and 
imports,  594;  Polk's  election  and  his  cabinet, 
595;  plan  of  the  free  traders  of  1844,  596;  bene- 
fits of  the  protective  tariff  of  1842,  597;  Walker 
tariff' enacted,  599;  effectsof  the  Walker  tariff 
and  the  tariff  of  1842  compared,  600;  acciden- 
tal prosperity  under  the  Walker  tariff,  603; 
domination  of  the  slave-holding  section,  605; 
tariff  law  of  1857  enacted,  605;  its  effects, 
606;  table  of  imports  in  1S46  and  1S60,  608; 
agriculture  in  1840,  1S50  and  i860,  610;  .sta- 
tistics of  the  cotton  industry  from  1847  to 
1860.  610;  condition  of  manufactures  in  1840, 
1S50  and  i860,  611;  revenue  from  1S55  to 
1857,  612;  adverse  balance  of  trade,  613; 
effect  of  free  trade  in  the  South,  614;  tariffs 
of  i860  and  1861,  616;  additional  war  tariffs, 
617;  resources  of  the  North  under  protec- 
tion, 617;  statistics  of  national  debt  for  five 
years  before  and  five  vears  after  the  civil 
war,  618;  tariff  acts  from  1865  to  1870,  61S; 
tariff  changes  from  1870  to  1880,  619;  causes 


ofthe  panic  of  1873,  62t;  prosperity  under 
protection,  622;  tariff  of  18S3,  623;  unsuc- 
cessful attempts  of  Democrats  to  reduce  the 
tariff,  626;  table  showing  growth  of  manu- 
factures from  1880  to  1890,  628;  prosperity 
from  1880  to  1890,630;  sectional  character  of 
the  Mills  bill,  630;  protection  still  needed  in 
1890,  631;  table  showing  general  progress 
from  i860  to  1890,  631;  table  of  dutiable  im- 
ports and  the  labor  employed  in  producing 
them,  634;  industrial  possibilities  in  1890, 
635;  tables  showing  manufacturing  and 
general  progress  in  the  South,  636,  637;  need 
of  protection  in  the  West,  637;  in  the  East 
and  North,  63S;  the  McKinley  act,  639;  reci- 
procity under  the  McKinley  act,  646-51; 
table  of  foreign  trade  in  iS92,'649;  summary 
of  tariffs  from  1789  to  1894,  654-56;  Admin- 
istrative Customs  Law,  656;  agriculture  the 
leading  industry,  657;  distribution  of  popu- 
lation among  the  industries,  657;  home  mar- 
ket for  farm  products  built  up,  658;  various 
causes  of  agricultural  prosperity,  659;  table 
showing  agricultural  progress,  660;  growth 
of  the  cotton  industry,  672;  table  showing 
progress  with  reference  to  that  of  England, 
674;  tables  of  textile  imports  from  England 
in  1SS3,  1890  and  1891,  679;  trade  with  Eng- 
land in  1S95,  6S5;  growth  of  the  silk  indus- 
try, 685-88;  industries  brought  in  by  protec- 
tion, 687;  need  of  protection  for  the  linen  in- 
dustry, 5SS;  progress  of  the  iron  and  steel 
industry,  689-93;  tables  showing  growth 
from  1S60  to  1890,  691;  progress  of  the  pot- 
tery industry,  695-97;  condition  ofthe  glass 
industry,  697-99;  progress  of  miscella- 
neous industries,  700;  table  showing  growth 
of  manufactures,  from  i860  to  1890,  704-7; 
advance  of  wages  under  protection,  715-20; 
advance  of  industries  under  the  McKinley 
tariff,  730;  foreign  trade  in  1891  and  1892, 
731;  beginning  ofthe  panic  of  1893,  735;  its 
intensity,  737,75 1 ;  enactment  of  the  Gorman- 
Wilson  tariff,  739-41;  chief  features,  742; 
tables  of  foreign  trade  under  the  Gorman- 
Wilson-tariff,  745-49;  increase  of  the  na- 
tional debt,  752;  depression  of  home  trade, 
753;  domestic  market  exceeds  all  foreign, 
758,  759;  statistics  of  exports  of  agricultural 
products  to  England  in  1894,  760;  labor  cost 
of  various  commodities,  763-69;  the  country 
has  natural  advantages  that  should  be  util- 
ized, 803;  high  standard  of  living,  S04;  home 
trade  compared  with  foreign.  823;  industrial 
greatness  compared  with  the  rest  of  the 
world,  823;  table  of  exports  and  imports 
from  1791  to  1895,  828-830;  table  of  exports 
and  imports  of  gold  and  silver  from  1821 
to  1S95,  831-33;  table  of  revenue  from  1789 
to  1894,  834-36;  table  of  expenditures  from 
1789  to  1894,  837-39;  table  of  imports  in 
1S90,  1892,  1S94  and  1895,  S40-43;  table  of 
exports  in  1890,  1892,  1S94  and  1895,  S44-46. 
Utti,p;y,  Stewart,  evidence  on  the  spurious 
goods  brought  out  by  fierce  competition, 
271. 


Van  Buren,  IMartin,  sulimits  to  the  free 
traders,  592. 

Venetians,  rise  to  commercial  importance,  iS 
-20;  take  up  manufacturing,  21;  protective 
policy,  21;  cause  of  commercial  decline,  22; 
need  of  a  protective  policy,  32;  obtain 
privileges  in  London,  43. 

ViCKERS,  Thomas  Edward,  evidence  on  the 
closure  of  the  American  market  to  English 
steel,  270. 

Vii,i,EiNS,  rights  and  obligations,  38;  modes 
of  becoming  enfranchised,  41. 

Wade,  John,  on  the  prosperity  of  England 
under  George  II.,  90;  on  agriculture  in  Eng- 
land during  the  eighteenth  century,  91. 

Wages,  attempt  to  fix  rate,  61;  relation  to 
cheap  production,  212,  233;  of  .Asiatic  labor- 
ers, 235;  reduction  demamki";  in  .,  "1.  .  iining 
industr}', 237,238;  reduction  i        :  .  i-.n 

millsunderfree  trade,  243;  1:  <  h  11 

mills,  254;  relation  to  tlu-  ...,i  .1  i.i,  l,n 
goods,  256;  reduced  in  the  British  linen 
industry  under  free  trade,  259;  competition 
demands  low  rates  in  the  jute  industry, 
25i;  reduced  in  the  English  steel  works, 
269;  reduced  to  meet  foreign  competitior  in 
English  metal  industries,  264,  270,  272;  in 
boiler-making  and  iron  ship-building;  272; 
in  the  chemical  industry,  274;  reduction  in 
agricultural  occupations  under  free  trade, 
283-85;  reduction  required  to  hold  foreign 
markets,  321,  322;  necessary  decline  under 
free  trade,  330;  evidence  of  decline  in  Great 
Britain,  331-44,  347-61;  TMr.Giffen's  statistics, 
340;  Mr.Hutchinson'sstatistics,  340;  purchas- 
ing power  in  1804,  1X14,  1S33,  1836  and 
1876,  344;  general  condition  of  the  English 
working  people,  346;  as  found  by  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Labor  of  1S91  to  1S94,  348; 
Mr.  Brassey  on  the  influence  of  coinpetitioti, 
349;  table  of  rates  paid  in  ship-building  in 
England,  350;  in  English  cotton  mills  in 
1892  and  1852,  351-53;  in  English  woolen 
mills  in  1892,  353-57;  in  miscellaneous 
textile  industries,  358;  in  "  sweated  trades, " 
360;  small  advances  and  large  reductions 
under  free  trade,  361;  advance  in  the  United 
States  under  protection,  363;  reduction  not 
compensated  for  by  cheap  food,  364;  rise 
under  protection  in' Germany,  442-45;  table 
of  rates  paid  in  1882  and  1889,  446;  rates  in 
Russia  under  protection,  485;  rise  in  France 
under  protection,  529;  statistics  in  Italy 
under  protection,  542;  advance  under  protec- 
tion in  Canada,  553;  table  showing  rates  in 
American  and  English  cotton  mills,  673; 
in  the  lace  curtain  manufacture,  676; 
table  of  rates  in  American  and  Euro- 
pean worsted  mills,  681;  in  the  clothing 
industry  in  the  United  States,  684;  statistics 
in  .American  and  European  linen  mills,  6S8; 
table  of  rates  in  the  iron  and  steel,  railroad, 
and  coal  mining  industries  in  England  and 
America,  692;  table  of  rates  in  the  pottery 
industrj'  in  England  and  America,  696;  table 
of  rates  in  American  and   European   glass 


works,  699;  advanced  by  protection  in  the 
United  States,  715;  tables  of  rates  in  the 
United  States  and  Europe  in  1890,  719;  how 
aSected  by  a  low  tarifif,  735;  low  under  ihe 
Gorman-\Vilson  tariflf,  749;  under  the  supply 
and  demand  theory,  796;  to  prevent  reduc- 
tion is  tlie  cliief  purpose  of  protection,  803; 
old  Mallluisian  theory,  806;  the  wage-fund 
theory,  807;  what  iixes  the  rate  in  the 
United  States,  809;  reduced  by  cheap  goods, 
S14. 

Wagner,  Professor,  on  paternal  legislation 

in  Germany,  41S. 

Walker,  Francis  A.,  on  the  value  of  farms 
in  the  United  States  in  1870,  661. 

Walker  Tariff,  596-99. 

Warner,  John  De  Witt,  free  traders  re- 
joice over  death  of  protected  industries  in 
United  States,  740. 

Warner,  William  D.,  report  on  the  beet- 
sugar  industry  in  Germany,  432. 

Wars,  conmiercial,  of  Dutch,  English,  French 
and  Spanish,  68-79;  Napoleonic,  79,  97,  130. 

Watch  making,  in  England,  decline  under 
free  trade,  294;  product  in  United  States,  700. 

Watterson,  HiiNKY,  on  the  Democratic  tariflf 
policy,  742, 

Watts,  James,  on  the  facilities  of  England  for 
the  cotton  manufacture,  251. 

Ways  and  Means  Committee,  of  Fifty-first 
Congress.  639;  of  Fiftv-third  Congress,  739. 

Wealth  of  English  people,  93,  96,  97,  325,  326; 
of  German  people,  452;  unequal  distribution 
of,  in  England,  328,  329,  330;  of  France.  524; 
of  Italy,  538;  of  United  States,  631;  distribu- 
tion of,  825. 

Webb,  Sidney,  on  pauperism  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  38 1. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  protection  in  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  of  the  United  {States, 
56S;  speech  against  the  tariflf  of  1S46,  599. 

Weinburg,  Julius,  evidence  on  the  decline 
of  the  British  jute  industry,  261;  on  the  loss 
of  foreign  markets,  261. 

Wells,  David  A.,  misleading  comparisons, 
118;  on  natural  rights  of  citizens,  797. 

West,  Algernon,  evidence  on  the  concentra- 
tion of  wealth  in  England,  327. 

Wheat,  consumption  of,  foreign  and  home 
grown,  in  England  from  iSoo  to  1S40,  104, 
105;  deceptive  arguments  relating  to  British 
competition  in,  171,  173;  speech  of  Lord 
Derby  on  protection  to,  183-86;  imports 
into  England  from  1859  to  '890,  280;  de- 
creased production  in  England,  280,  281,  285; 
consumption  of,  foreign  grown  in  England, 
285-86;  Irish  imports  of,  373-74;  duty  on, 
in  Germany,  427;  German  production  and 
imports  of,  429;  Russian  exports  to  Germany, 
429;  production  of,  France,  513,525,  531;  con- 
sumption of,  in  France,  531;  production  of, 
Italy,  540;  production  of,  Holland,  547;  pro- 
duction of  Canada,  555;  production  in  United 
Stales,  1850  to  1890,  631,  660,  661;  price  of, 
i873and  1S91,  711;  exportsof,  under  McKin- 


ley  and  Gorman-Wilson  bills,  749;  increas- 
ing production  of  foreign  countries,  758;  im- 
ports of,  into  England,  1894,  760;  decreasing 
exports  of,  from  United  States,  1892  to  1S95, 
S44. 

Whitman,  William,  Jr.  ,  statistics  of  wages 
in  American  and  English  cotton  mills,  673. 

Williams,  Edwin,  statistics  of  revenue  from 
duties  in  1842-44,  166;  on  the  American 
duties  on  raw  materials,  602. 

William  of  Orange,  England  under,  77,  78. 

Walker,  ,  on  the  loss  of  foreign  mar- 
kets for  British  jute  manufactures,  262. 

Walker,  Francis  A.,  theory  of  wages,  808. 

Women,  in  miscellaneous  textile  industries, 
358;  wages  in  English  cotton  mills  in  1892, 
353;  in  English  woolen  mills,  356;  relief 
given  under  the  English  Poor  Law,  379. 

Wood-working  industries,  growth  in  Prus- 
sia, 469. 

Woolen  industry,  growth  in  England  under 
protection,  108;  table  of  imports  of  wool  and 
exports  of  woolen  goods,  1820  to  1859,  109; 
magnitude  in  England  in  1856,  220;  decline 
in  England  under  free  trade,  252-57;  de- 
cline in  British  exports  of  from  1S74  to 
1892,  252,  statistics  in  England  and  the 
United  States,  252,  255  ;  influences  of 
changes  in  duties  in  the  United  States, 
257;  foreign  competition  with  England,  292; 
decline  of  yarn  spinning,  293;  wages  in 
English  mills  in  1S92,  353-57;  three-loom 
weavers  rare  in  England,  355;  effect  of  fast 
looms,  357;  wages  in  the  United  States,  363; 
table  of  exports  from  England  from  i860  to 
1892,  396;  development  in  Russia,  465;  ad- 
vance under  protection  in  France,  511;  its 
need  of  protection,  520;- condition  in  the 
United  States  in  1S42  and  1847,  597;  growth 
in  the  United  States,  631,  706,  677-85;  condi- 
tion in  the  United  States  in  1843  and  1847, 
597;  rise  and  decline  in  the  United  States, 
623-26;  tables  of  imports  and  exports  of  the 
United  States  in  1895,  746;  conditions  aflfect- 
ing  it  in  France;  520;  various  customs  regu- 
lations in  America,  677;  statistics  of  imports 
and  domestic  production  from  1820  to  1890, 
678;  statistics  of  wages  in  worsted  mills  in 
America  and  Europe,  681;  tables  of  imports 
and  exports  of  the  United  States  from  1S92 
to   1895,  746,  747- 

Wright,  Carroll  D.,  on  the  rise  of  wages  in 
the  United  States,  363. 

Wright,  J.,  evidence  on  the  depres,sion  of  the 
English  silk  industry,  232. 

Yeats,  John,  on  the  decrease  of  England's 
exports  of  manufactures,  15S;  on  the  ship- 
ments of  gold  from  Australia  to  England, 
217;  on  the  Poor  Laws  of  George  III.,  376; 
on  the  commerce  of  Germany  after  the 
Napoleonic  wars,  406,  407;  on  the  indus- 
trial advancement  of  Germany  under  pro- 
tection, 413;  on  the  Continental  system  of 
Napoleon,  505. 

Zollverein  formation,  411. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
)ks  are  subTecn^mme3T 


^^m' 
^Sm 


22Nov'.'  7p 


)oks  are  subject  to  immedia 


iREe^ 


puo 


t40V  Vo  '0^ 


lOjan'59SD  Z 


>SG'P^^  m  15 '66 -10  M 


LD 


M/^R  7    m3 


APR  1  5  1966  3  rj 


RECEIVED 


^^m 


1_^^Lqah 


-^^t^^ 


•*j^ 


^n-^ 


^..r^^-6^^ 


-'it^^ 


DEPT. 


■AR5    1969  4  7 


RECEIVED 


FEB25'69-8AM 


LOAN   DEPT. 


jmtMmUa 


